PAINTERS.
_Benoit Boulouvard de Sainte Albine and Sister_, by L.
Sicardi (M. le Comte Allard du Chollet) 329
_Mlle. Constance Mayer_, by P. P. Prudhon (Eudoxe-Marcille
Collection) 335
_Portrait of a Lady_, by J. B. Augustin (M. Ed. Taigny).
_Portrait of a Young Lady_, by J. Guérin (Mme. de Sainte
Martin Valogne) 341
_Mme. Henri Belmont_, by L. F. Aubry (M. de Richter) 347
_F. B. Isabey_, by Himself (M. Ed. Taigny) 353
WORKS OF REFERENCE
Archæologia, volume 39.
Athenæum, The.
Biographie Universelle.
Bordier, Les Emaux de Petitot en Angleterre, G. des Beaux
Arts, 1867.
Bradley's Dictionary of Miniaturists, Illuminators, &c., 3 vols.,
1887.
Bromley's Catalogue of Engraved British Portraits.
Bryan's Dictionary of Artists.
Burlington Fine Arts Club, Catalogue of Exhibition of
Miniatures at.
Connoisseur Library, Heath, Dudley, Miniatures, 1905.
De Conches, History of English School of Painting.
Eighteenth Century, Exhibition of Works of Art of (Catalogue),
Paris, 1906.
Evelyn's Diary.
Fairholt's Dictionary of Art terms.
Foster, J. J., British Miniature Painters and their Works, 1898.
" Miniature Painters, British and Foreign, 1903.
" Concerning the true Portraiture of Mary Stuart,
1904.
Gazette des Beaux Arts.
Gower, Lord Ronald, Great Historic Galleries.
Granger's Biographical History of England.
Graves, A., Dictionary of Artists.
Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography.
Kugler's Handbook of Painting.
Labarte, Jules, Histoire des Arts Industriels.
Laborde's Renaissance des Arts.
Lacroix, The Arts in the Middle Ages.
Lenoir, Catalogue de collection du Louvre.
Lomazzo, A tracte containing the Artes of Painting.
Louvre, Catalogues.
Mariette's Abecedario.
Merrifield's Arts of Painting.
Miniatures, Special Loan Exhibition, South Kensington, 1865.
Molinier, E., Dictionnaire des Emailleurs, Paris, 1885.
Nagler's Kunst Lexicon.
Pattison, Mrs. Mark, Renaissance of Art in France.
Pepys' Diary.
Propert's History of Miniature Painting, London, 1887.
Redgrave's Century of Painters.
Redgrave's Dictionary of Artists of the English School.
Robertson, Andrew, Letters and Papers of.
Rouquet's State of the Arts in England.
Smith, J. R. Nollekens and his Times.
Van der Doort's Catalogue, by Vertue, London, 1757.
Vasari's Lives of the Painters.
Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting.
Williamson, G. C., Portrait Miniatures.
Wornum's Life and Works of Holbein, London, 1867.
I
ON THE
COLLECTING OF
MINIATURES
CHATS ON OLD MINIATURES
CHAPTER I
ON THE COLLECTING OF MINIATURES
You would like to make a collection of old miniatures, did I hear my
reader say? and you want to know the best way to set about it? Well,
I can suggest one way: it is to become a millionaire, and let it be
known that you are interested in miniatures, then you will find that
a collection can easily be made, and not only so, but people will
actually make it for you, with an alacrity, ingenuity, and industry
which may surprise you. Should you further inquire what the collection
would be like when made, my reply would be: that depends upon your own
taste, intelligence, knowledge of art in general, and of miniature
painting in particular; upon the depth of your purse--and, I had almost
said, on your luck. Let me take that last-named qualification first,
and illustrate what I mean by luck in relation to a collection of
miniatures. Some years ago the father of the present Duke of Buccleuch
took to collecting miniatures, and the agent he employed to purchase
them was the late Mr. Dominic Colnaghi, into whose shop there walked
one day a man who said he had some little pictures to sell that he had
bought with a "job lot" of old silver and gold from a working jeweller.
These "little pictures" turned out to be no less a prize than a number
of miniatures formerly in the collection of Charles I., which, as
we know, was dispersed at the time of the Commonwealth. In the days
of the King's prosperity these had been catalogued and described by
the Royal Librarian, the conscientious Dutchman Van der Doort, and
these miniatures bore on their back a crown and the royal cipher,
the entwined C's. Now, after all their vicissitudes, these priceless
historical miniatures rest in Montagu House, Whitehall, barely a
stone's throw from the window in the banqueting-hall of the palace
whence their Royal one-time owner stepped forth upon the scaffold on
that bitter winter morning of January 30, 1649. By the word "luck" in
connection with this acquisition, I mean that they might have been
taken to any one else but Dominic Colnaghi, in which case there is but
little likelihood of their having formed part of the famous Buccleuch
Collection.
In truth, it may be said that there is no royal road for the collection
of miniatures, and especially in these days, when so many sharp
eyes are on the look-out for them. If you go to the auction-room
you are confronted with that iniquitous institution known as
the "knock-out," which not only debars the owner from getting the
full value of his property, but often prevents the would-be private
purchaser from acquiring it at all.
[Illustration: R. COSWAY, R.A.
LADY VILLIERS.
(_Col. W. H. Walker._)
KATHARINE, FIFTH DUCHESS OF LEEDS.
(_Col. W. H. Walker._)]
To be a successful collector of miniatures demands that one should be
conversant with their market value, which, in its turn, presupposes
some knowledge of the various painters and the characteristics of their
work. Here again, I make so bold as to assert, there is no royal road.
Knowledge of this sort, like most other knowledge worth possessing, has
to be acquired by experience, by patience, and by degrees. The various
handbooks which have appeared in such plenty of late years professing
to teach "How to Identify this" and "How to Collect that" are, no
doubt, valuable in their way, but, in my opinion, are apt to lead the
inexperienced collector to believe that the discrimination and the
judgment essential to safety are more easily acquired than is likely to
be the case in so difficult a pursuit.
And it is difficult, because, as no doubt the reader will often
have observed for himself, it is so very frequently the case that
miniatures do not bear the names of either the person whom they are
intended to represent, or of the artist who drew the likeness. So
that the collector who would judge of some little head, it may be, is
thrown back upon the necessity of having an intimate knowledge of the
technical characteristics and qualities of the work before him, which
is often the sole test that he can apply and the trifling clue he has
to follow. In the case of old silver there are, at any rate, the
stamps to guide the connoisseur, to say nothing of other differences
which I need not stop to point out. Most old china, too, is marked.
Again, as with china, and also with silver, there is the forger to
beware of, and he constitutes a very real danger, even to collectors
of experience, because the forgery of miniatures is brought in these
days almost to the level of a fine art, and the ingenuity employed to
deceive is indeed remarkable. Take by way of illustration the practice
of painting miniatures upon old playing-cards--or what appear to be
old playing-cards, for I am told that such things as the latter are
expressly fabricated. In the days of the Stuarts miniatures were
painted upon pieces of playing-cards, and when framed they were often
backed up by one or two other pieces fitted in behind them. These
latter pieces afford valuable opportunity for the forger's exertions.
Old papier-mâché frames, from which some silhouette or comparatively
worthless portrait has been taken, are employed to mislead the unwary.
A copy, painted only the week before, is put into some old frame of the
eighteenth century, and although costing but a few shillings (and dear
at that), is offered at as many guineas to the confiding collector,
who, if he falls into the trap, thinks he has got a bargain, as no
doubt he would have if--_if_ only the prize were an original, and what
it professed to be.
Then the manufacture of copies of well-known examples in public
collections is carried on unblushingly and upon a wholesale scale. I
have had large leather cases of such things, containing tray after
tray of them, offered me repeatedly, and "upon highly advantageous
terms." These are the work of continental copyists, German and French.
In Paris they may be found by the gross in the shops of the Rue de
Rivoli and in the purlieus of the Palais Royal. And let not the
collector make light of this persistent fabrication, because, remember,
they _are_ bought by somebody. The distribution of them is going on, as
Americans say, "all the time." They become dispersed and crop up again
under all sorts of circumstances, from all kinds of sources; they have
endless fictitious origins given to them. Generally you are told that
they have been in the possessor's family for untold generations, and
that the grandfather of the would-be vendor refused a fabulous sum for
them.
Perhaps the best advice that I, as one of some experience in such
matters, can give, is to be summed up in the word "caution." I say,
then, use caution, and always caution, and once more caution.
There remains the alternative of acquiring miniatures by private
treaty, often a somewhat delicate matter.
It would not be difficult to write an essay on the Ethics of
Collecting, but it might be hard to discriminate with nicety between
the use the collector is justified in making of his superior knowledge,
to the detriment of the possessor, because we must not forget that when
a bargain is "picked up," the _owner_ does not benefit much. It is of
the essence of "a bargain" that the coveted object--whether it be old
china, old furniture, jewels, or what not--shall be acquired below
its customary, real, and interchangeable value. Well, that clearly is
a transaction in which both parties cannot reap the advantage, and
the gain of the one is measured exactly by the loss of the other. The
tactics of the buyer are well understood in the East, where they are
universally practised to-day, as they have been for untold centuries.
Do we not read in Proverbs, "The buyer saith it is naught, it is
naught, and when he goeth his way he rejoiceth"?
But enough on a matter which, after all, must be left to the individual
conscience, always supposing a "collector" has one.
Uncertainty and confusion often arise in the mind of purchasers owing
to miniature painters of widely different abilities bearing similar
names, and sometimes owning the same initials. It is important,
therefore, to be able to discriminate in such cases. Thus we shall find
three "Arlauds" and an "Artaud," though I suspect the last named is a
misprint. It occurs on a miniature shown at Kensington in 1865.
Amongst the early men there represented were two Betts, or Bettes,
Thomas and John, probably brothers, though their relationship is really
uncertain.
One frequently hears a work described as an enamel by H. Bone. There
were two--Henry, the father, a Royal Academician, and Henry Pierce
Bone, his son. There were also two grandsons of Henry Bone, viz., W.
and C. R., who practised between 1826 and 1851. The latter of these
contributed no less than sixty-seven miniatures to the Royal
Academy. In 1801 there was also an enamel shown at the Academy by P. J.
Bone.
[Illustration: A JACOBITE BADGE.
LOUISA OF STOLBERG.
(_A. Lang, Esq._)]
[Illustration: MR. BARBOR AND THE BARBOR JEWEL.
(_Victoria and Albert Museum_)]
[Illustration: CHARLES I. IN HIS OWN HAIR.
(_Shelley family._)]
A. E. Chalon, R.A., was a miniature painter; he was brother to
John James Chalon, R.A. Miss M. A. Chalon, the miniaturist, was a
daughter of Henry Bernard Chalon, and no relation to the above-named
Academicians.
Lawrence Crosse must be distinguished from Richard Crosse, whom he
preceded by many years.
As we all know, many good miniatures were painted by Maria, wife of
Richard Cosway.
There were two Collins, both admirable miniaturists, but no relation to
each other, viz., Samuel, master of Ozias Humphrey, R.A., and Richard
Collins, pupil of Jeremiah Meyer, R.A.
Samuel Cooper had an elder and less accomplished brother, Alexander.
Alexander Day must not be confounded with Thomas Day, nor with Edward
Dayes, whose wife was also a miniature painter.
William Derby had a son Alfred T. Derby, a miniature painter like his
father.
Then we must distinguish between John Dixon, the pupil of Lely, who was
made "Keeper of the King's picture closet" by William III.; John Dixon,
the mezzotint engraver, and N. Dixon.
The last named was an excellent miniature painter who is well
represented in the Buccleuch Collection, although unmentioned in
Redgrave's "Dictionary." There were eleven works by him shown at the
Winter Exhibition of the Royal Academy in 1879 portraits of the
period of the Restoration and somewhat later. In the catalogue of
this exhibition Dixon is called Nathaniel; Mr. Goulding, the Duke of
Portland's librarian, informs me there is evidence at Welbeck that this
artist's Christian name was Nicholas.
There were two Englehearts, viz., George and his less talented nephew,
J. C. D.
William Essex had a son William B. Essex, also an enameller.
I find two Ferriers, F. and L., probably father and son, and three
Goupeys, Louis, also the brothers Joseph and Bernard.
Mrs. Mary Green was no relation to her contemporary, Robert Green, also
a miniaturist.
Richard Gibson, the dwarf, had a daughter, Susan Penelope, and a nephew
William, who both followed his profession.
Charles Hayter was eclipsed as a miniature painter by his son, Sir
George.
There was a Moses Haughton, or Houghton, an enameller, who had a
nephew, also named Moses, a miniaturist.
D. Heins and John Heins, his son, both painted miniatures at Norwich.
Nicholas and Lawrence Hilliard, father and son, are probably often
confused.
There are said to be two Hoskins, both John, also father and son.
Two out of the three Hones were miniaturists, viz., Nathaniel, R.A.,
and his grandson, Horace Hone, A.R.A.
Thomas Hopkins was an enameller, and William Hopkins a miniature
painter.
There were several artists of the name of Lens, viz., Bernard Lens,
enameller, who had a son Bernard, an engraver, and a grandson (also
Bernard), enamel painter to George II.; whilst Andrew Benjamin Lens and
Peter Paul Lens, each miniature painters, are assumed to have been sons
of the last-named Bernard.
G. M. Moser, R.A., had a nephew an enameller, named Joseph Moser. His
daughter Mary was celebrated as a flower painter, but I do not find
that she painted miniatures.
The short-lived Richard Newton should be distinguished from Sir William
John Newton.
Daniel and John O'Keefe were brothers, and both miniaturists.
Isaac and Peter Oliver were father and son.
Of the two Plimers, Andrew and Nathaniel, brothers, the latter was the
inferior artist.
Alexander Pope, the poet, was an industrious amateur artist; but there
was another Alexander Pope, an Irish miniature painter, who exhibited
at the Royal Academy from 1787 to 1821, and who was also an actor; he
played at Covent Garden in 1783.
Andrew Robertson, the well-known Scottish miniature painter, had two
brothers, of inferior artistic ability to himself; they both had the
same initial, namely A, one being Archibald, the other Alexander.
There was a Mrs. A. Robertson who also painted miniatures; she was a
Miss Saunders, niece of George Saunders the miniature painter. She
worked in this country in the early part of the nineteenth century;
going to St. Petersburg in 1847, she was elected a member of the
Russian Imperial Academy. Two other Robertsons, the brothers Walter and
Charles, practised in Dublin at the end of the eighteenth century, the
latter excelling in female portraits.
The Petitots, father and son, were both named John.
One of the most familiar names amongst British miniature painters is
that of Ross, and Sir William Charles Ross may be said to have been the
last of the old school. His father (H. Ross) and mother both painted
miniatures. Then there was also an H. Ross, jun., who exhibited at the
Academy from 1815 to 1845; a Miss Magdalene Ross, who became Mrs. Edwin
Dalton, and exhibited for over twenty years, and finally a Miss Maria
Ross.
There were two Sadlers, Thomas of the seventeenth century, and William
Sadler, who flourished in the eighteenth century.
I shall mention only two Smiths, both sons of Smith of Derby, viz.,
Thomas Correggio, the elder and John Raphael Smith.
Two William Sherlocks exhibited miniatures at the Royal Academy in 1803.
Joseph and William Singleton were contemporary exhibitors during the
last century.
Of the three Saunders, George L. is the most distinguished; the other
two, Joseph and R., were father and son.
Finally, there were three Smarts known as miniaturists, viz., Samuel
Paul and the two John Smarts, father and son, besides Anthony Smart
and his two daughters.
I shall have something more to say later in this volume about several
of the artists whom I have just mentioned, but here I may refer to a
miniature painter who may well be placed in a class by herself, for
she painted without hands or feet. This lady was a Mrs. Wright, _née_
Sarah Biffin; nothing daunted by her apparently overwhelming physical
disabilities, she learnt drawing, and in 1821 was awarded a medal by
the Society of Arts.
I am not aware of other miniature painters handicapped as Miss Biffin
must have been. But I know of several other artists who have worked
without hands, _e.g._, C. F. Felu, a Belgian painter, who was a
familiar figure in the Antwerp Gallery, where he painted for many
years, and copied hundreds of the masterpieces therein. He held his
palette with his left great toe placed through the orifice in which
it is usual to put the thumb, and used the brush with his other foot
with astonishing freedom and precision. I remember to have seen him
fasten the small metal hooks of his colour box with the utmost ease and
celerity. Then there was W. Carter, who, having neither hands nor feet,
drew exquisitely with his mouth; and of late years Mr. Bartram Hiles,
deprived of his arms by a tramcar accident, has shown what a noble
enthusiasm to practise as an artist can enable a man to do.
ON THE CARE OF MINIATURES.
"First catch your hare," said Mrs. Glass in her immortal cookery-book.
And now, the reader having collected miniatures, or being their
fortunate possessor by inheritance or otherwise, it is not unimportant
to know how to take proper care of them. These delicate works of
art are always subject to the attacks of two enemies, and they are
insidious enemies, although of widely different natures. The one is
sunlight, and the other is damp, which brings mildew and disfigurement
in its train.
It is really melancholy to see, as one so often does, the terrible
destruction which has been wrought by these two agencies, a destruction
the nature and extent of which are, perhaps, only fully realised when
one is fortunate enough to come across a work by a fine miniature
painter in anything like its pristine condition. I am talking of old
miniatures, of course, and have in my mind as I write a portrait, by
one of the Olivers, I think, of Henry, Prince of Wales, that I saw in
one of those interesting historical exhibitions at the New Gallery;
the Stuart it must have been. This miniature was surrounded by many
others, ostensibly by the same artists, and by examples of contemporary
painters. It doubtless had been kept covered up during the many years
it had been painted, and thus had a freshness and vigour which was
absolutely startling in comparison with the faded, ghostlike specimens
to be seen around. Indeed, it is only when we see a good miniature
in anything like its original condition that we can grasp and fully
appreciate the strength and beauty of the earlier masters, and admit,
without any doubt or qualification, their claim to our admiration.
[Illustration: QUEEN ELIZABETH.
(_Harcourt family._)]
[Illustration: R. COSWAY, R.A.
MISS PRETYMAN.
(_J. Davison, Esq._)]
Take another painter, Nicholas Hilliard. A most prolific artist he
would seem to be, judging from the number of examples by him that I
have met with; speaking generally, one may say that all his work is
marked by flatness in the flesh-painting. This artist was appointed
painter of miniatures to Queen Elizabeth, and we are told that he
was instructed to paint her royal features without any shadows. My
point is that nearly all his work is marked more or less by the same
peculiarity. Now this may be the result of a fashion set by the Virgin
Queen, and, as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (and she was
very fond of flattery), that may in part account for the frequently
ghostlike effect of the faces in Hilliard's work; but my own opinion is
that in nearly all of them the carnations have flown, as artists say.
That constant source of mischief--exposure to light--is always to
be guarded against. Owners are, it must be said, very careless in
such matters. I have seen in the morning-rooms of great houses most
valuable miniatures hung on the shutters, or stuck about on a screen,
placed perhaps in the embrasure of a window. No doubt the owners like
to be surrounded by such things, but they should at least have some
consideration for posterity. In such a room as I have spoken of you
may perhaps see a case of miniatures hung over the mantelpiece, with
a hot chimney behind them. Within my own experience I have known most
disastrous results, from that cause alone, in the case of historical
miniatures of great value, belonging to a noble owner who shall be
nameless.
Turning now to the other great disfigurement which so often besets
miniatures--the ravages made by mildew. This, in some instances, can be
traced to the fact of cases containing miniatures being hung against a
damp wall. Probably the simple expedient of a piece of cork, fastened
at each corner on the back of the case, would have proved a safeguard.
This would prevent contact with the wall, and allow of a current of
air passing up behind. Although the fungus which results from damp is
terribly disfiguring, it dies off in time, leaving a yellow stain. This
can be removed by a skilful hand and careful treatment, and, in so far,
is a less-to-be-dreaded enemy than light, or I should say sunlight.
This latter, of course, can be easily guarded against by another
simple expedient, which is, either to keep your miniatures locked up
in drawers, or, if you must have them on your walls, have a small rod
fastened to the top of your case, with a dark curtain on it which you
can draw back at pleasure.
But I have heard some collectors say, "My miniatures have never been
put against damp walls; they have been kept in cases always, yet they
have mildew on them." Well, it must be admitted that this unsightly,
objectionable fungus does appear unexpectedly and in the best regulated
households. No doubt the germs were there, shut into the case; in due
course they have been developed, bringing perplexity and dismay with
them.
* * * * *
Miniatures of a comparatively recent type, that is to say upon ivory
(as well-informed collectors know, it was not until the early Georgian
period that this substance was used to paint on)--miniatures on ivory,
I repeat, are subject to curl, warp, and crack; changes of temperature
easily affect the thin slices which the artist uses; when one of these
splits, as it often does, the only thing to be done is carefully to lay
the pieces down on cardboard, joining the edges as skilfully as may be,
a task only to be performed satisfactorily by an expert.
The large miniatures by Sir William Ross, Sir W. J. Newton, and R.
Thorburn are particularly liable to this mischief, the reason for which
is to be found in the practice of these artists in employing several
pieces of ivory for one picture.
A large slab, the largest procurable, taken from the circumference of a
tusk, rolled flat under great pressure, was laid down by gutta-percha
upon a well-seasoned mahogany panel; round this on all sides were laid
other strips of ivory, the whole forming a large surface upon which
it was possible to paint an elaborate composition, proportionately
expensive, (for that, I take it, was the principal incentive to the
artist). Such pictures as these represented great labour--for you
cannot "wash in colour" on ivory--and being highly finished all over,
warranted the artists in asking high prices, and they obtained them.
Other dangers there are, arising from the cupidity excited by the
value of these little works, so easily removed, and often in valuable
settings. But risks from those who break through and steal are common
to all valuables, and owners of property are alive to them. Yet these
few words of reminder and caution against pilferers will, I trust, not
be deemed out of place.
II
THE
ORIGIN
OF THE
ART
CHAPTER II
THE ORIGIN OF THE ART
When we come to get a little familiar with old miniatures, to have
learned their language, as it were, we shall find that, if they
are authentic portraits, they possess, in addition to their high
personal interest, other and distinct values as illustrations of
art, of history, and of costume. They are, in fact, when genuine
and contemporary, precious documents, some of which go back several
centuries, and are of great service in reading the history of the past.
They have, like other works of art, their definite origins; and so,
too, they have their own separate and distinct characteristics, and it
is upon these and such-like aspects of the study that I propose now to
say a few words.
As in the case of so many arts and religions, it is to the Orient, that
cradle of them all, as far as our present knowledge allows us to know,
that we must turn our eyes, if we wish to find the earliest source of
the practice. There is no doubt whatever that the Egyptian papyri were
rubricated, and we may safely conclude that the use of gold, silver,
and colour in the ornamentation of MSS. found its way from the valley
of the Nile into Greece. Thence Greek artists took it to Rome, and from
Rome the use spread throughout Europe.
Many choice historical miniatures have long pedigrees, and it may be
worth while to see how far back we can definitely trace the practice of
the fascinating art which gave them birth.
On this point I may quote the opinion of the late Keeper of the
Department of Engravings in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, M. Henri
Bouchot. He had made, as is well known, a close and profound study of
the art of the French "Primitifs," and therefore the conclusions that
he arrived at may, I think, be very safely taken on this subject.
Writing many years ago in the _Gazette des Beaux Arts_, he said the
origin of miniature painting "is lost in the obscurity of the ninth
century." He contended that the heads which are to be found in MSS. of
that period, the work of monkish artists, are intended to represent
some well-known prince, emperor, or pope of that time. He suggested
that the painter, shut up in his monastery, could only paint such a
portrait from hearsay, and from information which he gathered from
brethren of his Order, or from neighbouring great nobles with whom he
came in contact, and who, in their turn, had seen the original of such
a portrait or portraits.
If this distinguished French critic be right, it follows that at that
remote date such representations could have been little less than
pure inventions; and such, indeed, he would have us suppose to be
the case for several centuries more. But at the commencement of the
fourteenth century it would seem that the illuminators set themselves
to render the real portraiture of individuals; and here, from our point
of view, the especial interest of the subject may be said to begin.
[Illustration: FIFTEENTH-CENTURY MISSAL.
A PHILOSOPHER.
(_Wallace Collection._)]
The art, then, may be traced to the illuminated devotional
manuscripts, Books of the Hours, or Lives of the Saints, enshrining
minute, exquisite, and loving labour. Who these early artists of
the Scriptorium were we shall never know; but the manuscripts which
have escaped the wreck of Time have come down to us, silent yet
eloquent testimonies of their authors' patience and skill. It is in
connection with their beautiful work that the word "miniature" came
into existence, the term being derived from the Latin _minium_, or
red lead, that being the pigment in which the capital letters in the
manuscripts were drawn. The art of medieval illumination was expressed
by the Latin verb _miniare_; the word thus will be seen to be closely
allied to our term "rubric." The persons employed in this work seem
to have been classified as Miniatori, Miniatori Caligrifi, or Pulchri
Scriptores. The first named painted scenes from Scripture stories, also
the exquisite borders and arabesques. To the others would be entrusted
the writing of the body of the book.
But whilst we may thus go back to medieval times for the origin of the
name, it can hardly be said to have been in use with us before the
beginning of the eighteenth century. Thus Samuel Pepys never uses the
word, while Horace Walpole constantly does so. An entry in the Diary
of the former, made in 1668, speaks of his wife's picture which Samuel
Cooper painted for him; and earlier--that is, in 1662--John Evelyn
relates how he was called in to the closet of the King (Charles II.),
and "saw Mr. Cooper, the rare limner, crayoning of the King's face and
head to make the stamps by for the new milled money now contriving."
The reader will observe that no mention of the word "miniature" is made
by either writer. And there is something arbitrary in the use of the
word now and always, for it is restricted to portraits in water-colours
or gouache, whether on vellum, paper, or ivory. Yet figures when
painted in oil, even though as small as Gerard Dow's, or not more than
two or three inches high, are called small pictures. When the most
important exhibition of miniatures ever held in this country--namely,
the collection which was brought together at South Kensington, in
1865--was being arranged, its organisers were confronted with the
difficulty attaching to a definition of the term; and it may be worth
while to give the conclusion they arrived at.
In reply to the question, What constitutes a miniature portrait? they
remark that miniatures may be drawn on any material, painted in any
medium, and in every style of art. Commencing with the head only, to
which the skill of some of our early "face painters" was limited, we
find their works followed by miniature half-lengths, whole-lengths,
and groups; but from these no technical, accepted definition of the
term "miniature" can be derived. Without, therefore, attempting to
lay down a rule, it was deemed best in the interests of the exhibition
to accept all such works as were drawn to a small scale and were, in
manner, of a miniature character, except paintings on porcelain.
[Illustration: UNKNOWN.
SIR WALTER RALEIGH.
WALTER RALEIGH, JUNIOR.
(_Duke of Rutland._)]
Returning to the origin of the term, we see that it was the
ornamentation of the office of the Mass in use in the Christian Church
which really gave rise to it. Under the protection of Constantine,
Christian art may be said to have come into existence in the fourth
century at Byzantium. Work of this period has a very strongly marked
and sufficiently familiar character of its own. The Canterbury Gospels
in the British Museum are ascribed to the eighth century, and the
Louvre possesses a noble work in the shape of the Prayer Book of
Charlemagne, which belongs to the ninth century. It is to Charlemagne
that we owe the Carlovingian school, and when the tomb of the great
Emperor, at Aix-la-Chapelle, was opened, a copy of the Gospels was
found upon his knees.
Another very interesting school is the Hibernian, sometimes called
Anglo-Celtic. A characteristic feature of this work is the inferiority
of the figure-drawing, but the elaborate and beautiful interlacing of
the geometrical patterns is no less remarkable. Perhaps the best-known
example of this school is the Book of Kells, preserved in Trinity
College, Dublin. Brought from the abbey church of Kells in 1621 by
Archbishop Ussher, it was confiscated during the Commonwealth, but
restored to Trinity College by Charles II. after the Restoration.
Still dealing with the early work of this nature, I may briefly refer
to what is known as Opus Anglicum, of which the Benedictional of St.
Ethelwald, belonging to the Duke of Devonshire, is the most celebrated
example. This belongs to the latter part of the tenth century, as
we know by a Dedication it contains, showing that it was made for
Ethelwald, Bishop of Winchester from 963 to 984 A.D. The
Bishop "commanded a certain monk subject to him (the scribe Godeman)
to write the present book, and ordered also to be made in it certain
arches, elegantly decorated and filled up with various ornamental
pictures expressed in divers beautiful colours and gold."
And so we might go on to consider the various Continental schools--the
Flemish and German, the French and Italian--but the subject is too
large to be dealt with here. Those of my readers who care to pursue a
fascinating study will find ample illustration in the freely displayed
treasures of the British Museum, where fine examples of every school
may be seen. At Hertford House the Wallace Collection, amongst its
multifarious treasures, contains some initial letters which have
been cut out of MSS., no doubt on account of their beauty. They are
obviously portraiture. The example here shown is Italian work, and is
taken from a fifteenth-century missal.
Whilst I am unable to enter upon details of the earliest schools, I may
observe that the material upon which work of this nature was done has
a practical bearing upon our subject. It was upon vellum, sometimes
stained purple, upon which the letters were written in gold or silver.
There is a magnificent example of this work, known as the Codex
Purpureo-Argenteus, preserved at Upsala, in Sweden. This has been dated
as early as A.D. 360. And I remember the pride with which the
monks in the remote monastery on the Isle of Patmos showed me five
pages of one of the Gospels, also on vellum, stained purple, which
had been preserved in their library with religious care for unknown
centuries. The surface of the vellum, naturally greasy, would have to
be carefully prepared for the art of the "steyners," as they came to be
called. When so prepared it was called _Pecorella_.
[Illustration: BACK OF THE ENAMEL CASE CONTAINING THE RALEIGH PORTRAITS.
(_Duke of Rutland._)]
To vellum succeeded cardboard. Nicholas Hilliard and the great English
miniature painter Samuel Cooper commonly used old playing cards; and a
very good substance for the purpose they were, not being so liable to
cockle as vellum, nor to crack, curl, and split as ivory under certain
conditions is liable to do. It has already been noted that ivory
did not come into use for such purposes until about the end of the
seventeenth or beginning of the eighteenth century.
This is a very important point in detecting forgeries, and, indeed, in
determining the age of any work about which doubt may exist.
The way to paint miniatures is no part of the subject of this book;
nevertheless, by way of giving a practical value to its pages, I may
state the method employed by a miniature painter with whom I was
well acquainted and whose work I greatly admired, and this seems a
convenient place to do so. The artist to whom I refer was the late
Robert Henderson, a self-taught man, born in Dumfries. He lived to
the close of the nineteenth century, but the manner of his execution
was essentially that of the mid-Victorian painters, and whilst it had
not quite the brilliancy of the flesh tones of Sir William Ross, for
example, whose work he greatly admired, it was always conscientious,
sound, and excellent.
Without being laboured, it was always marked by a careful finish. He
was a frequent exhibitor in the Royal Academy, but was indifferent to
the distinction, having constant employment from Messrs. Dickinson for
a long series of years, during which he painted a large number of the
British aristocracy. I am able to subjoin some account of his method of
working and choice of colours from particulars he gave me himself, and
as they may be useful to others, I extract them pretty much in his own
words:--
"Having chosen a piece of ivory of good colour and even texture,
prepare its surface by rubbing it with the finest glass paper. The
first step is to draw the likeness with a blacklead pencil on paper,
not on the ivory itself, because, if any corrections are needed,
they cannot be made without smudging and making the ivory dirty, a
thing to be studiously avoided. This drawing should then be carefully
transferred to the surface of the ivory by means of a piece of tracing
paper.
"Now take a nice flat sable brush, and wash the face all over with a
flesh colour, then indicate the features, eyes, and so forth, touching
in the nostrils and mouth. Next prepare a grey tint, made of cobalt
or ultramarine with a tinge of red to give it a lilac tint. Wash this
all round the outer part of the face--not touching the centre of the
face. Then with a little blue mixed with the flesh colour, work up the
face until you get somewhat the effect of an engraving. This being
done, you may proceed to put in the deepest shadows, _e.g._, under the
nose and eyebrows, with a warm colour composed of a light red with a
little blue in it. Having got your deep shadows in, use the grey again,
this time with a little more flesh colour, and blend the whole together.
[Illustration: ASCRIBED TO LUCAS DE HEERE.
SIR JOHN HATTON AND HIS MOTHER.
(_Earl Spencer._)]
"For a flesh colour I used to employ rose madder and cadmium yellow in
about equal proportions; for men's complexions light red alone makes
a good flesh wash. There is a new red brought out which is warranted
to be thoroughly permanent; it is a useful colour, called mazarine,
and comes in for everything. There have been suspicions cast upon rose
madder, but I have found it stand well enough in ordinary miniature
painting. Carmine was used by Sir William Ross and Thorburn, certainly,
but that was apt to go dark in colour. The madders are very delicate
colours.
"Eyes--for hazel use burnt sienna and French ultramarine, real
ultramarine being very expensive. For ordinary dark brown eyes nothing
is better than sepia; for blue eyes it depends on the shade--if bright
strong blue, cobalt is the best colour; for grey eyes use cobalt and
a little light red--the latter very sparingly. Cat's eyes (by which
I mean greenish) require peculiar colouring, which must depend on
circumstances and be treated accordingly.
"Hair is a troublesome thing to get right. For golden hair I use a
very thin wash of burnt sienna; for the half tones a purple tint--blue
and red mixed in equal parts, and for the deep shadows burnt sienna.
For ordinary dark hair nothing is better than sepia, and for the high
lights a purple grey--blue and a touch of red--that gives a glossiness
to the hair. For grey hair simply mix sepia and ultramarine; for red
hair burnt sienna is used principally, shaded with sepia in the dark
parts.
"Backgrounds--for the ordinary, deep, plain, brownish, the best thing
is a wash of burnt sienna and ultramarine, in proportions as required
to obtain warmer or cooler effects. For a cloudy sky or background use
cobalt for the blue and light red mixed with cobalt for the deeper
shadows; where the shadows come near the figure, use brown madder and
cobalt; touch the edges of the clouds with light red alone, to give a
warm, cloudy effect.
"Draperies--for a man's black coat use blue-black and cobalt, mixed in
about equal proportions, and a little madder lake; put in the shadows
with sepia. For a lady's black silk use much the same, only less
blue-black and more cobalt, with a little light red in it; use sepia
again for the shadows, as it gives a warmer tone than black itself. If
lights are required on a black coat when it is too black, body colour
must be used--white, with a little light red mixed with it."
III
CONCERNING
ENAMELS
AND ENAMEL
PAINTERS
CHAPTER III
CONCERNING ENAMELS AND ENAMEL PAINTERS
The subject of enamel has a close relation to that of these pages,
although its uses, as need hardly be said, far transcend the limits of
portraiture. Every substance, whether earthenware, stone, or metal,
to which a vitreous substance can be made to adhere by heat may be
enamelled, but this term is usually restricted to metalwork ornamented
by a vitreous glaze. As in the case of illuminated manuscripts, we find
the earliest instances of the use of enamel in Egypt, and Dr. Birch is
our authority for believing that there was a method of inlaying glass,
jasper, and lapis lazuli, which resembled enamel in effect, employed
as far back as the Fourth Egyptian Dynasty--that is to say, some four
thousand years before the Christian era. The Chinese have had it in
use for unknown centuries, and it was applied by the Etruscans and
Greeks to enrich their jewellery. It has been found employed for horse
trappings and for human ornaments, such as brooches, bracelets, and
rings, both in this country and in Ireland, under circumstances which
lead us to assign it to pre-Roman days.
But it is with the seat of Roman power on the Bosphorus, namely,
Byzantium, in the early Christian centuries, that antique enamels
seem most closely associated; and the museums of Europe contain great
numbers of marvellous works of this description originating from that
source. What has come down to us is for the most part intended for
ecclesiastical use; reliquaries, diptychs, triptychs, the covers of
missals, chalices, crosses, and objects of a like nature abound. On
many of these there are what may, in a sense, be termed portraits
of saints and ecclesiastical dignitaries; but it is obvious that no
attempt at likeness, as we moderns understand it, can have been made
in this work of the fourth to the eleventh centuries. This Byzantine
style and influence, which have left such a deep mark in art, may be
said to survive to this day in the ritual of the Greek Church; but
that is another story. I may remark that the Byzantine work is for the
most part what is called _cloisonné_; this term, and one of a somewhat
similar sound, namely _champlevé_, is constantly used in descriptions
of old enamel, and it may be well, therefore, to define what is meant
by each respectively.
The former has been described by M. Lebarte as being made in the
following manner: "The plate of metal intended as a foundation was
first provided with a little rim to retain the enamel. Slender strips
of gold of the same depth as the rim were then bent in short lengths
and fashioned to form the outline of the pattern. These short bits
were then fixed upright upon the plate. The metal outline being thus
arranged, the intervening spaces were filled with the different
enamels, reduced to a fine powder and moistened into a paste. The piece
was then placed in the furnace, and when the fusion was complete, was
withdrawn, with certain precautions that the cooling might be effected
gradually. The enamel, when thoroughly cold, was ground and polished.
It is easy to comprehend that the old artists must have used very pure
gold and extremely fusible enamels, in order that the plate might not
be injured from the action of the fire or the thin strips of metal be
melted by the heat which fused the paste."
[Illustration: AFTER J. HYSING.
C. F. ZINCKE AND HIS WIFE.]
The method of preparing _champlevé_ is as follows: "A slender line of
metal shows on the surface the principal outlines of the design; but
the outline, instead of being arranged in detached pieces, is formed
out of a portion of the plate itself. The artist, having polished a
piece of metal about a quarter of an inch thick, generally copper,
traced upon it the outlines of his subject; then, with proper tools he
hollowed out all the spaces to be filled with the different enamels,
leaving slender lines level with the original surface to keep them
distinct. The vitreous matter, either dry or reduced to a paste, was
then introduced into the cavities, and fusion was effected by the same
process as in the _cloisonné_ enamels. After the piece had become cold
it was polished, and the exposed lines of copper having been gilded,
it was returned to the fire. The gilding only required a moderate
temperature, not high enough to injure the incrustations of enamel."
Byzantium, as I have said, was a great seat of the _cloisonné_ process,
and the celebrated "Pala d'oro," a magnificent altar front now
preserved at St. Mark's, Venice, was made at Constantinople about the
year 1100. In _champlevé_ enamelling, although the art was practised
in the Rhenish provinces of Germany, it was at Limoges, in France,
that the finest work was done, and in the thirteenth century _opus
Lemoviticum_ was in high favour. A century later, when the city was
sacked by the troops of Edward the Black Prince, the manufacture
received a great check. But with the Renaissance came a renewed demand
for enamels, which were used in combination with articles of domestic
utility, and in the reign of Francis the First the enamellers of
Limoges, among whom Suzanne de Court, Laudin, Jehan Courtois, and
Pierre Reymond are well known, produced decorative works of the most
costly and beautiful nature. Whole families devoted themselves to the
art, and their traditions were handed on from generation to generation.
But perhaps the most famous name in connection with this French work is
that of Léonard Limousin, and three others, namely, Jean, Joseph, and
François, of the same family.
Léonard Limousin, who was appointed painter to the king, François I.,
has expressed in numerous pieces which have come from his hand the very
spirit of the Renaissance, partly devotional and still more strongly
classical and sensuous in feeling and treatment. Old Limoges enamel,
as we all know, is extremely valuable; single pieces from the Hamilton
Palace Collection were sold at Christie's in the celebrated sale for
something like £2,000 apiece.
The subject is far too wide to be treated exhaustively in this book,
but at the Victoria and Albert Museum examples will be found of the
various styles, and the varied uses to which they were applied. The
British Museum of late years has been enriched by what is known as
the Waddesdon Collection, bequeathed by the late Baron Ferdinand de
Rothschild; and in Paris the Cluny Museum, and especially the Salle
d'Apollon in the Louvre, are extremely rich in works of this nature.
[Illustration: AFTER DANCE.
JEREMIAH MEYER, R.A.]
[Illustration: NATHANIEL HONE, R.A., BY HIMSELF.]
All these collections contain portraiture in enamel, but one would
hesitate to say that the portrait is the primary object in the
production of these works, in which undoubtedly a decorative feeling
largely predominates.
Although in the general treatment they were feeling their way to a
larger palette, no attempt seems to have been made by these earlier
artists to get anything approaching reality in the flesh tones; they
were left a uniform cold white. Until one has got a little used to this
absence of colour, and the metallic hardness which the use of oxide of
tin in the paste of the enamel gave rise to, and until one recognises
that it is the conventional mode of treating them, the pallor of the
faces, contrasted, as it generally is, with a deep blue, or sometimes
shining black background, is somewhat repellent.
Take, for example, the large medallion of the Cardinal de Lorraine,
Charles de Guise, uncle to Mary Stuart, a piece which cost the nation
£2,000, and may be seen at Kensington. It represents the Cardinal in
scarlet robes and a biretta. The head, fully seven inches long, is
painted upon a deep blue ground; his hair is black, the eyes are
blue, and the effect of the whole is, it must be admitted, extremely
hard, in spite of the distinguished name its author, Léonard Limousin,
bears in the ranks of medieval enamellers. The work is as different as
possible from the exquisite minuteness which characterises other enamel
painters, like Petitot, for instance, to whom we shall come by and by.
The same lack of modelling and of half-tones may be observed in the
portraits in the Waddesdon room at the British Museum, to which
reference has already been made. See, for example, the large panel,
9 inches by 12, or thereabouts, of Catherine de Lorraine, Duchess de
Montpensier. This lady wears her hair in a golden and jewelled net; her
open collar is laced with pearls; this piece is also signed Limousin,
and may be regarded as a typical sixteenth-century portrait.
The step forward which was to elevate the art of painting in enamel
to the highest possible pitch of technical execution, of artistic
treatment and minute finish, was taken by Jean Petitot, a Genevan,
born in 1609. Apart from the wonderful skill of the artist, who, in
respect of technique, must be considered absolutely unique, the means
by which such beautiful, delicate, and minute effects could be produced
in so difficult an art as that of fusing colours would be in itself an
interesting study.
Probably it is to Jean Toutin, an obscure French goldsmith, who lived
at Châteaudun, and, assisted by Isaac Gribelin, a painter in pastels,
and doubtless by his son, Henri Toutin, of Blois, produced, about
1632, a variety of colours which he found could be laid upon a thin
ground of white enamel, and passed through a furnace with scarcely any
change of tint, that Petitot owed the richness of his palette. From
Toutin, and from Pierre Bordier, another French goldsmith, to whom he
was apprenticed, Petitot gained the insight into enamelling which bore
such rich fruit when he came to this country in his twenty-eighth year,
attracted, there is little doubt, by the reputation then enjoyed by our
king, Charles I., as a patron of art.
The English monarch had in his service as physician at that time a
certain Sir Turquet de Mayerne, himself a Genevan and a chemist of
European celebrity. He and Petitot pursued scientific research into
the nature and properties of the metallic oxides with such ardour and
success that the miniature painter's palette became greatly enriched,
and he was able to express all the _nuances_ of flesh colouring in a
way which had never before been approached and, I may add, has never
been surpassed.
When one realises the extraordinary minuteness and exquisite finish
of a work of Petitot, and the difficulties of the method--by which I
mean the risks attending the firing--it is almost incredible that such
success could be attained; but probably there were large numbers of
failures of which the world knows nothing.
In some of the Limoges work we see attempts at colouring the cheeks;
but the result is not satisfactory; whereas in Petitot it leaves
absolutely nothing to be desired, and the most minute differences of
character find expression in the art of this wonderful man. Take as
an example the two portraits of Louis XIV., to be seen in the Jones
Collection in the Victoria and Albert Museum, one representing the
Grand Monarque when young, the other in more advanced years; or, from
the same Collection, take the portraits of Mme. de Montespan and
Mlle. de la Vallière; and compare these again with the insipidity and
monotony of Lely and Kneller, the two artists most in vogue in this
country at that time; here you have upon a small piece of gold, perhaps
hardly bigger than a finger-nail, nearly all that may be looked for
in a portrait, coupled with a perfection of technical execution to
which it is impossible to do justice in words. One comes away from an
examination of that admirable collection which the nation owes to the
generosity of Mr. John Jones with a paramount feeling of astonishment,
wondering how such work was done.
Of course Petitot has had innumerable imitators; and although the
standard of the Collection to which reference has just been made is
very high, there are in it examples which are instructive, and serve to
show how supreme the master was in his own line. A contemporary pupil,
namely Jacques Bordier, was a cousin of the Pierre Bordier, Petitot's
old master and colleague, of whom I have just spoken. According to M.
Reiset this Jacques Bordier also worked in England with Petitot. Like
Petitot, he returned to the Continent, and did a great deal of work
in Paris upon watch-cases; the two men married two sisters, Madeleine
and Margaret Cuper, in 1651. Pierre Bordier stopped in this country and
executed an elaborate watch-cover, designed as a memorial of the Battle
of Naseby, presented to General Fairfax, and described in the catalogue
of the sale of Strawberry Hill, where it was sold. It was, doubtless,
the troubles of the Civil War which drove the great enameller back
to France, where he was well received by Louis XIV., and commissions
flowed in upon him until the close of his life; indeed, he is said to
have retired to Vevey to escape the importunity of his patrons; and
there he died, at an advanced age, in the year 1691.
[Illustration: SIR A. MORE.
THOMAS HOWARD.
(_Duke of Norfolk._)]
[Illustration: JOHN BETTES.
EDMOND BUTTS.
(_National Gallery._)]
The art of which this incomparable miniaturist was such a great
exponent was peculiarly adapted to a form of patronage much in vogue
at that time; that is to say, it was employed in the adornment of
costly and exquisite snuff-boxes. These _boites aux portraits_, as
they were called, were extensively used for diplomatic purposes,
and portraits of the Grand Monarque were ordered by the dozen at a
time. The presentation of boxes of such a character with a portrait
on, or inside, the lid, with or without a setting of brilliants, as
the rank and importance, or otherwise, of the fortunate recipient
required, were part of the ceremonial usage and Court etiquette of
the day. The Collection left to South Kensington by Mr. Gardiner,
the extremely choice examples in the Wallace Collection, and the
still larger collection left by the Lenoirs to the Louvre, show the
extravagant pitch to which work of this kind was carried, the diamond
settings alone often running to a cost of many thousands of francs. For
example, a portrait of Louis XVI., when Dauphin, was presented to Marie
Antoinette. The portrait was painted by the most eminent miniature
painter of his day, namely Pierre Adolphe Hall; the artist received
2,684 francs, and the cost of the box and brilliants was over 75,000
francs.
Petitot may be studied to full advantage at the Jones Collection, even
better than at the Louvre, whilst at Hertford House there are only a
couple of examples attributed to him. In private collections there
are some notable works which passed from Strawberry Hill into the
possession of the late Baroness Burdett Coutts; and the Earl of Dartrey
also owns a number. The portrait, shown in this book, of Petitot le
Vieux, is from this nobleman's collection, which, by the way, is also
rich in examples by the brothers Hurter. These two enamellers came
from Schaffhausen, being introduced to the British aristocracy by the
Lord Dartrey of that day. Some thirty examples of their work were
shown at the Loan Exhibition at South Kensington in 1865 by the then
Lord Cremorne. At Althorp is a portrait of the beautiful Duchess of
Devonshire by John Henry Hurter; and Lord Dartrey has a portrait of
Queen Charlotte painted by J. F. C. Hurter.
[Illustration: HENRY BRANDON.
(_H.M. the King._)]
[Illustration: HANS HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER.
HIMSELF.
(_From a drawing at Basle._)]
[Illustration: CHARLES BRANDON.
(_H.M. the King._)]
We now pass on to consider the art of painting portraits in enamel as
practised in this country. The first name of any importance in this
connection is that of Charles Boit, a native of Stockholm, but of
French extraction. He was born in 1663, and when he was about twenty
came to this country and worked as a jeweller. Being unable to succeed
in that occupation, he turned drawing-master, and Walpole tells us of
an intrigue which led to his being thrown into prison for two years,
time which he is said to have turned to advantage by practising enamel
painting, though how that could have been done under such circumstances
I do not know. Ultimately he became celebrated for his work, and
obtained high prices for it He attempted pieces on a large scale, the
difficulties of which are enormously enhanced by their size, as is well
known to craftsmen. One was intended for Queen Anne, and the artist is
said to have received a thousand pounds advance on it, but before he
succeeded in firing it some £700 or £800 were spent, which led him into
such difficulties that he escaped to France, where he died, about 1726.
There is a large, though not particularly attractive, example of Boit's
to be seen in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford; but specimens of his art
are not very common, and are not nearly so often met with as those by
C. F. Zincke, whose spick-and-span style and bright blue draperies are
well known; Oxford is rich in them.
This Dresden miniature painter, whose features are familiar to print
collectors from the mezzotint of him and his wife by Faber, came to
England in 1706 and obtained the patronage of George II., although
that uninteresting monarch hated "boetry and bainting." Zincke's work
is, indeed, typically early Georgian, and repeats the insipidities
of Kneller on a small scale, with a persistent consistency which is
monotonous in the extreme. Horace Walpole had a high opinion of his
work; he declared that it surpassed that of Boit and rivalled Petitot,
an opinion which few who know the merits of Petitot's exquisite art are
likely to endorse.
Failure of eyesight led Zincke to retire in 1746; but he lived some
twenty years longer. During the forty years that he practised his art
he must have executed an enormous number of portraits, for he was the
fashionable artist of his day, and so great was the patronage bestowed
upon him that he raised his prices to limit the number of his patrons.
A pupil of Zincke's was William Prewitt, who is not, I think, very well
known. There is an example by him to be seen in the Victoria and Albert
Museum, a body-colour drawing. The Duke of Buccleuch has a portrait of
Horace Walpole when young, also painted by Prewitt.
Another miniaturist who was especially an enameller was Charles Muss,
said by some to be an Italian, and by others to have been born at
Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1779. He was enamel painter to George III. and
George IV.; and devoted himself especially to copying old masters.
Examples of his work in this direction will be found in the Plumley
Collection in the Victoria and Albert Museum.
[Illustration: HANS HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER.
A BURGOMASTER.
(_H.M. the King._)]
[Illustration: LADY AUDLEY.
(_H.M. the King._)]
A much better-known enameller is Nathaniel Hone, an Irishman of a
self-assertive, not to say aggressive, personality, if one may judge
by the tone of his remarks when he quarrelled with the Academy, of
which he was a full member, over his picture called "The Conjurer."
This indifferent painting excited an amount of attention of which
it was quite undeserving from the tongue of scandal, which asserted
that Sir Joshua Reynolds and Angelica Kauffmann were satirised in
the composition, and that one of the naked figures dancing in the
background was intended for the fair Academician.
Hone essayed the various branches of art with varying success. There
is a characteristic portrait of himself in the Diploma collection of
the Royal Academy. He, too, had a share of Royal patronage, and painted
many of the notabilities of his day, including the lovely Misses
Gunning. He had a son, Horace Hone, who was made an Associate of the
Academy, and who also practised as a miniature painter. His work is
considered inferior to that of his father.
John Plott, another miniaturist, was also a pupil of the elder Hone,
and was born at Winchester, where he studied law. Forsaking that
pursuit, he came to London, and was at first a pupil of Richard Wilson
R.A.
Two other Academicians associated with this period, and both enamellers
of exceptional ability, are George Michael Moser and Jeremiah Meyer.
Moser was the son of a sculptor, and was born at St. Galle, in 1704.
Upon his arrival in this country he found employment with the Royal
Family, and, being a fine medallist, was commissioned to design the
King's Great Seal. No doubt he had social gifts, and he certainly
enjoyed the respect and friendship of Sir Joshua Reynolds. He was one
of the most active founders of the Royal Academy, and was made its
first Keeper.
His only child, Mary Moser, was a flower painter of great reputation
in her day. She married a Captain Lloyd, but is reported to have
gone about the country in the company of Richard Cosway, who at the
beginning of the century was separated from his wife, Maria. This Mary
Moser, by the way, was a lady Royal Academician, like the fair Angelica
Kauffmann.
Jeremiah Meyer, the other enameller whom I have mentioned, was also
a foundation member of the Royal Academy; he was, moreover, a very
fine miniature painter. Great refinement of colour, excellent drawing,
perfect finish, and, what is perhaps more rare in miniature work,
truth to life, distinguish his miniatures. He came to London when he
was fourteen, and was a pupil of Zincke for two years. Fifteen years
later, when only twenty-nine, he was made enameller to George III. He
was a constant exhibitor at the Academy, where he showed some twenty
pieces. He was born at Tubingen, in 1735, and died in 1789, some three
years before Sir Joshua Reynolds, whose work is said greatly to have
influenced his style.
The palette of the enamel painter is a very rich one, but not all
the colours to be found amongst the metallic oxides fuse at the same
temperature. Hence the artist must be able to judge most accurately
the length of time that each will stand the heat without melting too
much and running one into the other. Such acquaintance can only be
acquired by pains-taking practice, and it is obvious how greatly the
difficulties of portraiture are enhanced under such conditions. It
is usual to place these opaque colours upon the enamel ground, on a
gold or copper plate, applying the hardest vitrifiable colour first,
then the less hard, and so on. It is perhaps not surprising that so
delicate a process, liable to be attended by failure at every step, has
fallen out of fashion in these days, and as a matter of fact it is now
scarcely attempted in this country at all--that is to say, in the way
of portraiture.
Formerly, however, it was carried on here with more or less success,
and one interesting practice of the art may be named before we leave
this part of our subject. I refer to what are known as the Battersea
enamels. In the middle of the eighteenth century, under the management
of S. J. Jansen, many articles, such as candlesticks, patch-boxes and
snuff-boxes, and such like, were produced. These are fairly well drawn
and coloured, and consist largely of flowers, birds and fruit, and so
forth, generally on a white ground. But beside all these there are a
number of contemporary portraits, produced by means of transfers from
copper plates. Amongst these are the beautiful Misses Gunning, the
Royal Family of the day, Gibbon, and many others. Some may be seen
in the Franks Collection at the British Museum, and a more important
collection is at the Victoria and Albert, brought together by the late
Lady Charlotte Schreiber.
To a somewhat later period than that we have been discussing belongs
Henry Bone, R.A., who, like so many other artists, came from the West
of England, having been born at Truro, in 1755. The circumstances
of his early life doubtless somewhat affected the direction which
his artistic efforts took, he having been apprenticed in a china
manufactory at Plymouth. He removed with it to Bristol in 1778, and,
coming to London, was employed in painting devices in enamel on
trinkets. He first attracted attention in London by an enamel of the
"Sleeping Girl," after Sir Joshua Reynolds, which was exhibited at the
Royal Academy in 1780. This led to his being appointed enamel painter
to Royalty, and George, Prince of Wales, extended his patronage to him.
Academical honours followed; he was made an Associate in 1801, and full
member ten years later.
Bone stands out as the enameller _par excellence_ of the English
school; and he was astonishingly successful in many large and ambitious
pieces. For example, he was paid two thousand guineas for a plaque
measuring 18 by 15 inches, a copy of Titian's "Bacchus and Ariadne,"
in the National Gallery. He devoted himself especially to copying the
works of the great masters, such as Raphael, Titian, and Murillo. He
also executed a series of 85 copies of portraits of the statesmen and
others who lived in "the spacious days of great Elizabeth." But whilst
a large measure of success may be ungrudgingly accorded him in respect
of these works, the flesh tones in his painting often leave something
to be desired; there is a suggestion of painting on porcelain, and of
the smoothness and want of vitality that characterise that kind of
work, and are so fatal to its artistic completeness. It would be a
little curious to trace this tendency to what may be termed ceramic
smoothness to the early training of Bone as a china-painter. At any
rate, it may be recognised as characteristic of his style.
His son, Henry Pierce Bone, followed his father's footsteps in painting
a great number of copies from the old masters. The elder Bone died in
1834, the younger lived some twenty years longer. Besides these two,
there was a P. J. Bone, who exhibited an enamel at the Royal Academy in
1801; and there were also two other Bones, whose names appear in the
catalogues, namely, W. Bone and C. R. Bone. They were the grandsons
of Henry, and exhibited up to 1851, the latter alone contributing 67
miniatures to the Academy.
[Illustration: HANS HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER.
CATHARINE OF ARRAGON.]
[Illustration: HENRY VIII.
(_H.M. the King._)]
[Illustration: HENRY, DUKE OF RICHMOND.
(_H.M. the King._)]
The last enamellers that I would mention are the Essexes, William and
William B. The former was born in 1784, and died at Brighton, in 1869.
In his long life he exhibited a large number of works at the Royal
Academy, mostly portraits, H.M. the late Queen Victoria giving him much
employment, and appointing him her enamel painter in 1839. Although
most of his works exhibited at the Academy from 1818 until within five
years of his death were portraits, or copies of paintings by the old
masters, animal painting was really his forte, as may be seen by an
examination of his work at the Victoria and Albert Museum.
His son, W. B. Essex, died in Birmingham, in 1852, at the early age of
twenty-nine, having contributed to the Academy from 1845 to 1851 some
ten or twelve portraits.
In concluding these remarks upon enamel painting, one cannot help
feeling a certain regret that the art, as applied to portraiture, I
mean, should have fallen into such desuetude in these days. When one
considers the beautiful effects which have been produced in it by the
hands of masters, and especially the valuable quality of permanence
which such works possess (for an enamel by Petitot is as brilliant
to-day as it was when it was fired), one must wish that artists
would devote themselves to so satisfactory a record of contemporary
portraiture. Miniature painting upon ivory, charming as it is in its
delicate effects, is, as we all know, subject to the great defect of
being fleeting in its nature, when exposed to light. Not only has the
charm and beauty of many a miniature by Cosway vanished utterly, but
a green and ghastly caricature is left in its place, a travesty and a
libel upon the original.
The amount of time and patience requisite to produce an enamel is, no
doubt, the secret of the neglect into which it has fallen in these
days. The tendency to haste and to hurry, with its concomitant,
cheapness of production, is, we are told, ruining the art of such
conservative craftsmen as those of China, of Japan, and of India; and
if these Western tendencies have made their influence felt in the Far
East, it is not to be wondered at that in England of to-day a portrait
in enamels is a thing which demands too much labour and time to be in
the vogue. True it is that it was never extensively practised here; but
now it may be said, as far as regards portraiture, to be practically
extinct.
IV
EARLY
PORTRAIT
PAINTERS
CHAPTER IV
EARLY PORTRAIT PAINTERS
Horace Walpole has asserted that this country has very rarely given
birth to a genius in painting. "Flanders and Holland," says he, "have
sent us the greatest men that we can boast." The following list of
portrait painters who are reputed to have practised in England during
the Tudor and Stuart periods contains, it will be seen at once, a very
large proportion of foreign names:--
John Bettes -- 1570
Thomas Bettes -- -- Surmised to be the son or
brother of John Bettes.
Pierre Bordier (E) -- -- _temp._ Charles I.
Jacques Bordier (E) 1616-1684
Alexander Brown -- -- _temp._ Charles II.
Samuel Butler 1612-1680
Joost Van Cleef 1500-1536
Francis Cleyn 1625-1650
John Cleyn -- --
Penelope Cleyn -- -- _temp._ Charles II.
Samuel Cooper 1609-1672
Alexander Cooper -- -- _flo._ 1650-1660.
David de Grange -- --
Lucas de Heere 1534-1584
Nathaniel Dixon[1] -- --
William Faithorne 1616-1691
Thomas Flatman 1633-1688
Sir Balthazar Gerbier 1591-1667
Richard Gibson 1615-1690
Edward Gibson -- --
William Gibson 1644-1702
John Greenhill 1649-1676
John Hayles -- 1679 Contemporary of Cooper.
Nicholas Hilliard 1547-1619
Lawrence Hilliard -- -- Son of Nicholas Hilliard.
Gerard Lucas Hornebonde 1498-1554
Susannah Hornebonde _cir._ 1503 --
John Hoskins -- 1664
John Hoskins, junr. (?) -- -- _flo._ 1686 (?)
Hans Holbein the younger 1495-1543
George Jamesone 1586-1644
François Clouet or Janet _cir._ 1510-1571-4
Cornelius Janssen 1590-1665
David Loggan 1630-1693
Sir Antonio More 1525-1581
Gaspar Netscher 1639-1684
Isaac Oliver 1556-1617
Peter Oliver 1601-1647
Sir Robert Peake 1592-1667
Luca Penni _cir._ 1500 --
Jean Petitot 1607-1691
Jean Petitot, fils 1650 --
Cornelius Polemberg 1586-1660
Theodore Russell 1614 --
John Shute or Shoote -- 1563
Matthew Snelling -- -- _flo._ 1647.
Gwillim Streetes -- -- _flo. temp._ Edward VI.
Levina Teerlinck -- -- Contemporary of Holbein.
Girolamo da Trevigi 1497-1544
Herbert Tuer -- 1680 (?)
Sir A. Van Dyck 1599-1641
Frederigo Zucchero 1543-1609
[Footnote 1: So called in the Royal Acad. Winter Exhibition Catalogues.]
As this book makes no claim to be regarded as a biographical
dictionary, and as I have given such particulars as I have been able
to ascertain about the whole of the above named in my larger works,
I do not propose to deal with those mentioned in this list _seriatim_,
but I shall devote chapters to the most important of them, such men as
Samuel Cooper, Hilliard, Hoskins, Holbein, the Olivers, and Petitot.
[Illustration: N. HILLIARD.
NICHOLAS HILLIARD, BY HIMSELF.
(_From Penshurst._)]
[Illustration: LADY MARY SIDNEY.
(_Harcourt family._)]
As to many of the others, I give their names for the sake of being
comprehensive but with reservations. Take, for example, Lucas de Heere.
It may be allowed that he worked in England, and there is a very good
oil painting by him in the Palace of Holyrood House, of a lady of the
Tudor period, miscalled Mary, Queen of Scots. But I should not like to
undertake to produce any evidence that he painted miniatures, in spite
of the fact of one of Sir John B. Hatton and his mother being shown at
Kensington in 1865, and attributed to him.
This work belongs to Earl Spencer. It is dated 1525, and signed "L."
Now, the date assigned to the birth of the artist is 1534. In other
words, this group, which comes from a great and justly celebrated
collection, namely, Althorp, and was shown under such auspices at that
great exhibition of miniatures to which I have so often referred--I
say, in spite of all this, a picture is actually catalogued as being
by an artist who did not come into existence till nine years after the
date which the panel actually bears.
The connection of many of the others with miniature painting is
decidedly slight, yet, as need hardly be said, there are contemporary
references to them which entitle them to a mention in this list. Thus
Lanzi has recorded that Lucca Penni and Giralamo Da Trevigi were
employed here. Then there was a lady miniature painter, a daughter
of Master Simon Bennink of Bruges, who was employed by the Court of
England. Thus we know that in 1547 "Maistris Levyn Teerling, Paintrix,"
was paid quarterly £11, and we read of her presenting Queen Mary with
a small miniature of the Trinity as a New Year's gift. Again in 1558
she presents her Majesty Elizabeth with the "Queen's picture finely
painted on a card," and received in return "one casting bottell guilt,"
weighing two and three-quarter ounces. And in 1561 she presents "the
Queen's personne and other personages in a box, finely painted." "One
guilt salt with a cover," weighing five and a quarter ounces, was the
return made for this.
Then there was the Horneband, Hornebonde, or Hornebolt family, of
whom some interesting particulars will be found in "Archæologia,"
contributed by Mr. Nichols.
The best known of these appears to be Susannah, whose father was in the
service of King Henry VIII. at a monthly pay of 33s. 4d. Her brother
Lucas, was even better paid, namely 55s. 6d. per month, a sum which was
more, it is interesting to note, than Hans Holbein received.
In April, 1554, the household books of Henry show that the painter was
duly paid his salary. In the following month there occurs this entry,
"Item for Lewke Hornebonde, Paynter, Wages nil, Quia Mortuus."
Albert Dürer has told us of his meeting members of this family at
Antwerp in 1521. He was impressed with the ability of Susannah, who
was then about eighteen years old, and he records how he gave her a
florin, for she had made a coloured drawing of our Saviour, of which he
says, "It is wonderful that a female should be able to do such a work."
[Illustration: N. HILLIARD.
HENRY VII.
(_H.M. the King._)]
[Illustration: ISAAC OLIVER.
CHARLES THE FIRST WHEN PRINCE OF WALES.
(_Duke of Rutland._)]
[Illustration: SPENSER.
(_Lord Fitzhardinge._)]
_Apropos_ of Antwerp, Joost Van Cleef may be mentioned. He is described
as an industrious painter noted for the beautiful rendering of his
hands, and according to Van Mander was the best colourist of his time.
He came to this country with an introduction from his countryman Sir
Antonio More, and Charles I. purchased two or three of his pictures.
He was expecting to get great prices for his work, but it seems some
canvases by Titian arrived in England at the same time as he did.
According to Walpole this threw the Antwerp painter into a jealous
frenzy.
He abused More (who was here at the time painting a portrait of Queen
Mary by command of Philip) with whom he afterwards returned to Spain,
telling him (More) to go back to Utrecht, and keep his wife from the
Canons. The unfortunate Van Cleef is said to have painted his own
clothes and spoilt his own pictures, and he behaved in such a way that
it was necessary to confine him.
There is a portrait of Henry VIII. at Hampton Court ascribed by some
to this painter, and the mention of this monarch reminds me of John
and Thomas Betts, brothers as is supposed, the former of whom painted
Edmund Butts, son of the King's physician. This portrait, in the black
cap and furred gown of the period, is to be seen in the National
Gallery, and came from the collection of the late George Richmond, R.A.
It is a vigorous, soundly painted work, recalling Holbein in manner,
as may be seen, I think, by the illustration shown on p. 77,
though markedly inferior in subtlety of rendering of character
to that great master.
It has been customary to term John Betts a pupil of Nicholas Hilliard,
but this portrait is conclusive evidence on that point, for it is dated
in the clearest manner 1545. Now, as Hilliard was not born till two
years later, it is sufficiently obvious that John Betts could not have
been his pupil.
In the case of these early English artists, John being supposed to have
died in 1570, any information which can be given is of interest. Apart
from particulars which may be gleaned from biographical dictionaries,
it is worth mentioning that at the Winter Exhibition of the Royal
Academy in 1879 the Duke of Buccleuch exhibited a miniature of
Catherine de Balzac, Duchess of Lennox (wife of Esmé Stuart, created
Duke of Lennox by James VI.), and another of Queen Elizabeth, both
ascribed to John Betts. At the same exhibition there was a miniature
of Thomas Egerton, Lord Ellesmere (Lord Chancellor, 1603), also lent
by the Duke of Buccleuch, and Dr. Propert had a miniature of J. Digby,
Earl of Bristol, which he ascribed to Thomas Betts.
Thomas and John Betts are mentioned in Mere's "Wit's Commonwealth,"
published in London, 1598, together with other artists whose names are
hardly known and whose works are absolutely unknown. The painters in
question were mentioned in the introduction to the catalogue of the
Kensington Loan Collection of 1865, but not a single example of
their work was forthcoming. Confusion reigns as to their date, and
beyond the fact that Vertue mentions a miniature by John Betts of Sir
John Godsalve, who was controller of the Mint to Edward VI., and that
in Hall's _Chronicle_ of the year 1576 (for which he engraved some
vignettes) he is termed a designer, and said to have been a pupil of
Hilliard's, but little is recorded of him.
[Illustration: ISAACUS OLIVERUS, ANGLUS, PICTOR.
_Ad vivum lætos qui pingis imagine vultus,
OLIVERE oculos mirifice bi capiunt
Corpora quæ formas jus to hæc expressa Colore.
Multum est, cum rebus convenit ipse color._
(_From a print in the British Museum._)]
With the exception of Holbein, and perhaps Petitot, the most important
name in connection with our subject, in the list of foreigners which I
have given at the commencement of this chapter, is François Clouet or
Janet. I shall devote a separate chapter to the latter.
Not least amongst the treasures of the unique collection of miniatures
in the Royal Library in Windsor Castle is a small one of Mary Queen
of Scots. As I have described this fully in my remarks upon the
Royal collection, I shall only now say that it was catalogued for
King Charles I. as "supposed to be done by Jennet, a French limner."
This name, which is spelt nowadays Janet, is that of a family whose
interesting history is given in some detail in Mrs. Mark Pattison's
"History of the Renaissance." It is not a little difficult to
distinguish between the various members of this family, the Clouets,
as they were also called; and we need not stop to deal with the story
now, as I have referred to the subject in my remarks on French art (see
Chapter XIV.), but there is no doubt that François was Court painter
in the reigns of Henry II. and III., of Francis II. and Charles IX. of
France, and that his work belongs to the period with which we are now
dealing. Judged by the standard of his own day, this artist attained a
high level of excellence, but if we are to judge of the merits of his
work rightly, we must discriminate between his finished pictures and
his studies for portraits. Now, these latter, some of which were hardly
more than memoranda in black and red chalk, were very fashionable
in Janet's day, and there is no doubt immense numbers of them were
produced. Great personages of the day owned portfolios of them, which
in a sense were the precursors of the photographic albums of our own
time.
Of Janet's work I can only mention a few examples here. Amongst them
is, at Chantilly, a notable one of Mary Queen of Scots, as she was when
nine years old, giving, it must be owned, but slender promise of the
physical beauty which afterwards she was allowed to possess by foes and
friends alike.
Equally interesting, of greater technical merit, and indeed of supreme
importance in their way, are the three superb portraits in the
Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, of Mary Queen of Scots as Dauphine,
of her first husband, Francis II., and of herself in the white Court
mourning or _deuil blanc_ which she wore as widow of the last named.[2]
Did only these three works exist, they would be quite sufficient to
stamp Janet as an admirable artist, perhaps second only to Holbein in
his way and in his time: I say second, because nothing of Janet's,
so far as I know, has ever reached the high level, the searching
execution, the power of draughtsmanship, and the masterly style of Hans
Holbein. It is with that great artist, who may be considered as the
founder of miniature painting in this country, that we have now to deal.
[Footnote 2: These illustrations in facsimile, and the size of the
originals, will be found figured in the author's work, "Concerning the
True Portraiture of Mary Stuart."]
[Illustration: VENETIA, LADY DIGBY.
(_Burdett-Coutts Collection._)]
[Illustration: I. OLIVER.
I. OLIVER, BY HIMSELF.
(_H.M. the King._)]
HOLBEIN.
Every tyro in art knows, it may be said, the eminence of Hans Holbein
the Younger as a painter, and especially as a portrait painter. He had
other gifts as well, to which we shall refer by and by, but perhaps all
my readers may not be aware that Holbein must be regarded as the actual
founder of the art of miniature painting in England.
As Hans Holbein came to London in 1526 it will be seen that the art of
limning has, in this country, a genealogy, so to speak, of nearly four
hundred years. And during all that long period, and amidst the great
number of artists who worked therein, there is no greater name to be
found than that of the Augsburg painter. It is to Erasmus that he owed
his introduction to this country, which he visited for the first time
when he was about thirty-two years of age. The painter's acquaintance
with Erasmus was made at Basle, where, by the way, in the Salle des
Dessins, one of the best portraits of Holbein is to be found--a
drawing in body colour on vellum, beautifully finished, which I here
reproduce. Sir Thomas More was a friend of Erasmus, and it was to the
house of this distinguished man that Holbein went on his arrival. There
he remained some time, painting portraits of eminent men with whom
he must have come in contact at Chelsea, amongst others--Archbishop
Warham, Sir Henry Guildford, Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, Sir Thomas
More himself, and two generations of the More family.
After a while he returned to Switzerland, and when he revisited this
country in 1531 his friend had become Lord Chancellor. We need not
attempt to follow his career here in detail; there is no doubt that
he soon was taken into the service of Henry VIII., and, becoming a
favourite of that monarch, was attached to the Royal household, and
appears to have had apartments in the palace at Whitehall. In 1538 he
is spoken of as "a sarvand of the Kynges Majesties named Mr. Haunce."
At this time his salary was £30 per annum, as to which the relative
value of money, then and now, must not be forgotten. In this year he
was at Brussels with Sir Philip Hobby, having a commission to paint the
portrait of the young widowed Duchess of Milan. It is a magnificent
full-length portrait, one of his finest works, and may be seen in the
National Gallery to-day, having been lent by the Duke of Norfolk. This
demure-looking lady may be credited with having a pretty wit of her
own, if the story told of her reception of an offer of marriage by
Henry VIII. be true; the answer she made to these overtures was that
she must beg to be excused as she was possessed of but one neck.
The collection of pictures and drawings for pictures attributed to
Holbein, and now preserved at Windsor, is well known and justly
celebrated. But it is with the miniatures which are supposed to
be his work that we have most to do in this book. It is somewhat
remarkable that so great an authority as the late Mr. Ralph Wornum must
be allowed to be should dispute the fact of Holbein having ever painted
any miniatures at all. In his "Life and Works of Holbein" he distinctly
asserts that there is not a single miniature in existence which can be
positively assigned to Holbein.
[Illustration:
PETER OLIVER.
SIR KENELM DIGBY.
VENETIA, LADY DIGBY.
(_Burdett-Coutts Collection._)]
The learned late Keeper of the National Gallery would probably not have
disputed that Holbein did paint miniatures, in the face of Van Mander's
explicit statement that "he [Holbein] worked equally well in oil and
in water-colours; he painted also miniatures of a special excellence,
which last art he learned from one Master Lucas, then in London, whom,
however, he soon surpassed." Then we have the testimony of Sandrart,
who says: "Holbein began practising the art when in the King's service,
having been incited thereto by the excellence of the works of Master
Lucas." There is no question, either, that Van der Doort regarded
Holbein as a limner; in his catalogue of King Charles I.'s collection
he speaks of two miniatures of Henry VIII. which he ascribes to
Holbein. But Mr. Wornum says of these that it is next to impossible
to identify them now. Then there is the express statement of Nicholas
Hilliard, who declares himself as the pupil of Holbein in the art of
limning.
Finally, in the Bodleian Library is a manuscript by Edward Morgate,
dedicated to Henry Frederick, Earl of Arundel, dated July 8, 1654,
entitled "Miniatura, or the Art of Limning," in which it is stated
that "the incomparable Holbein, in all his different and various
methods of painting, either in oyle, distemper, _lymning_, or crayon,
was, it seems, so general an artist as never to imitate any man, nor
ever was worthily imitated by any."
But whilst it seems impossible to dispute that Holbein certainly did
paint miniatures, the claims of individual specimens to be considered
as his handiwork are, of course, open to question, since none of his
works of this nature are known to be signed. It may, therefore, be
worth while to state what little evidence can be gleaned about some
of the best known pieces which are attributed to Holbein. There are
at least six in the King's collection at Windsor; of these two are
of Henry VIII.; they were given to Charles I. by Theophilus Howard,
second Earl of Suffolk, who died in 1640. I have described them at some
length in subsequent remarks on the Royal Collection. A third example
is that of Lady Audley. Here, again, we have not direct testimony, but
apart from the technicalities of the execution and so forth, we have
the fact that she was the daughter of Sir Brian Tuke, Treasurer of the
Chamber to Henry VIII., and that a portrait of her in red chalk is
among the drawings by Holbein at Windsor, the authenticity of which is,
I believe, unquestioned. The fourth to be mentioned in this connection
is the portrait of Queen Catherine Howard, a replica of which exists
in the Duke of Buccleuch's collection. Lastly, I may mention two
very interesting portraits of the sons of Charles Brandon, Duke of
Suffolk. They were entered in Van der Doort's catalogue as being
"done by Hans Holbein. Given to the King by Sir H. Vane."
[Illustration: ISAAC OLIVER.
FRANCES HOWARD, COUNTESS OF SOMERSET.]
[Illustration: AFTER SIR A. VAN DYCK.
PETER OLIVER.]
[Illustration: PETER OLIVER.
ARABELLA STUART.
(_Capt. J. H. Edwards, Heathcote._)]
These I have also described in Chapter XII., under "The Royal
Collection," for opportunities of examining which I may express my
obligation to the courtesy of the late librarian, Sir Richard Holmes.
The picture of a burgomaster (given on p. 85), is one which has been
assigned to Holbein, and it is also at Windsor.
Another of Henry's wives, whose portrait is ascribed to Holbein, and
was, we have reason to believe, in the Royal Collection at one time,
is Katherine of Arragon. Walpole says of this portrait: "It was given
to the Duke of Monmouth by Charles II. I bought it at the sale of Lady
Isabella Scott, daughter of the Duchess of Monmouth." When the famous
Colworth Collection was dispersed, a piece, purporting to be this
particular miniature, painted on vellum, was sold. It is reproduced on
p. 91. Its then owner, Mr. Magniac, sent it to the South Kensington
Exhibition of 1865, believing it, no doubt, to be as described in the
catalogue. But had he referred to the "Anecdotes of Painting" he would
have found that Walpole's description of it could not apply to this
particular work, seeing that it was _on a round_, and on a blue ground.
In the Strawberry Hill sale catalogue it is described as a "very fine
specimen of the master," and was purchased by W. Blamire, Esq., for the
sum of £50 8s.
A curious picture of a natural son of Henry VIII., by Lady Elizabeth
Talboys, was ascribed to Holbein in the Strawberry Hill Collection.
It was sold to the Duke of Buckingham for seven and a half guineas,
and bears the following inscription: "Henry Duck off Richmond, ætatis
sue XV^o." It is painted on an ace of hearts, and was formerly in the
collection of Mr. Sackville Bale, who enjoyed the reputation of being a
connoisseur of good judgment. This young man, it may be mentioned, who
appears to be painted in his nightdress and a most unbecoming nightcap,
did not live to be eighteen years of age.
There is an interesting portrait of Holbein himself to be seen at
Hertford House. As Mr. Claude Phillips, the keeper of the Wallace
Collection, accepts this as Holbein's work, I shall not stop to discuss
its authenticity, but I may remark that there is a duplicate of this
particular subject at Montagu House. The Wallace example is in oils on
card, whilst the Duke of Buccleuch's piece is in gouache, I believe,
on card. The view of the face, the position of the hands, and all the
details, except the length of the hair, appear identical. As to the
hair, it is certainly longer in the Wallace Collection portrait. This
latter piece may be thus described. Head and bust of a middle-aged man,
wearing black dress and cap, with a lace open collar, holding a pencil
in his right hand and looking at spectator, with whiskers and a short
beard, dark in colour and rather sparse. Blue background, circular,
about one and a half inches in diameter. It is inscribed "1543. Ætatis
suæ 45."
V
NICHOLAS
HILLIARD
[Illustration: JOHN HOSKINS.
CHARLES I.
(_H.M. the King._)]
[Illustration: ISAAC OLIVER.
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
(_H.M. the King._)]
CHAPTER V
NICHOLAS HILLIARD
As with other branches of art, so with miniature painting, we cannot
show any native-born artists of eminence until we arrive at the
middle of the sixteenth century, when the series of English miniature
painters, properly so called, may be said to begin with Nicholas
Hilliard, for we may disregard the one or two others whose names occur
only in stray references.
Nicholas Hilliard, born at Exeter, it is said, in 1547, is the first
English professed miniature portrait painter whose history can be
given. His father was Richard Hilliard, High Sheriff of his county in
the year 1560. His mother was a daughter of John Wall, goldsmith, of
London, a circumstance which there can be little doubt had much to do
with Nicholas Hilliard being brought up to the business of jeweller and
goldsmith, occupations closely connected with limning in those days.
Assuming the date usually given for his birth to be correct, as to
which I shall have something to say farther on, he engraved the Great
Seal when he was forty years of age. This means that his reputation
was already made--and indeed he had been appointed goldsmith, carver,
and portrait painter to Queen Elizabeth, "to make pictures of her body
and person in small compass in limning only." According to Pilkington,
he owed his introduction to the Virgin Queen to the interest of Sir
Walter Raleigh, but I have not met with any corroboration of this
statement. It is also commonly said that Hilliard was enjoined to
paint her Majesty without shadows. From what we know of the vanity of
Elizabeth this is not improbable, though it is, to my mind, by no means
certain; and there is another reason for the flatness of treatment
which is undoubtedly characteristic of his work, which I shall deal
with in considering his method of painting.
James I. granted him a patent to this effect: "Whereas our well-beloved
servant, Nicholas Hilliard, gentleman, our principal drawer of small
portraits, and embosser of our medals in gold, in respect of his
extraordinary skill in drawing, graving, and imprinting, &c., we have
granted unto him our special licence for twelve years, to invent, make,
grave and imprint any pictures of our image, of our Royal Family, with
power to take a constable and search for any pictures, plates, or
works, printed, sold, or set up."
There is not much to be said about the career of Hilliard, and this
work is not greatly concerned with biographical details. It must,
however, be observed that Hilliard had an only son, Lawrence, who
followed his father's profession, and enjoyed the patent granted by
King James, until its expiration.
[Illustration:
S. COOPER.
(_Duke of Devonshire._)
OLIVER CROMWELL.
(_Duke of Sutherland._)]
There is a warrant of the Council, dated 1624, extant, ordering the
payment of £42 to Lawrence Hilliard for five pictures "by him drawn."
Probably this privilege was a source of emolument to the Hilliard
family (by the way, Lawrence had several children), and gave them
control over the engravers and print-sellers of the period to whom
licences were granted. Simon de Passe was employed by them in engraving
small plates of the heads of the Royal Family.
Nicholas Hilliard died on the 6th of January, 1619, and was buried in
St. Martin's in the Fields. He left to his sister, Ann Avery, £20 out
of the £30 due to him as his pension. This, it will be remembered, is
the same amount as Holbein's salary.
Works by Nicholas Hilliard are by no means rare. We have just seen
that he lived to over seventy years of age, and was probably pretty
fully employed during the greater part of his career, as is shown
by portraits of James I. and his consort, Anne of Denmark, of which
several exist.
Fourteen examples of his work were shown at the Winter Exhibition of
the Royal Academy in 1879, of which four came from the Royal Library at
Windsor. A still larger collection was exhibited at the Loan Collection
at Kensington in 1865, and I have, at one time or another, examined a
great many examples personally. It may be said of all these that they
are characterised by uniformity of style, treatment, and quality.
We have Hilliard's own statement as to his artistic training:
"Holbein's manner of limning I have ever imitated," he says, "and
hold it for the best." Horace Walpole has remarked concerning this
"manner of limning": "Although he copied the neatness of his model
(Holbein), he was far from attaining that nature and force which
that great master impressed on his most minute works. Hilliard," he
continues, "arrived at no strength of colouring; his faces are pale
and void of any variety of tints, the features, jewels, and ornaments
expressed by lines as slender as a hair. The exact dress of the times
he curiously delineated, but he seldom attempted beyond the head, yet
his performances were greatly valued."
The paleness of the faces in Hilliard's work, as it exists to-day, is
true enough, and would seem to justify the criticism of the owner of
Strawberry Hill, and his statement that the painter "arrived at no
strength of colouring," but before we accept the conclusion that his
portraits always possessed the bloodless appearance they now present,
we may ask whether it is by any means certain that they were originally
marked by this defect.
It must be remembered that they were painted more than three hundred
years ago, which is ample time for the flesh tints to have faded right
out. We know how the carnations have flown in numberless examples of
comparatively recent work, the ghastly paleness of which robs them of
all beauty. The more perfect condition of the jewels and ornaments,
with which the figures in Hilliard's pictures are so profusely
adorned, is not conclusive, owing to the opaque nature of the colours
and the quantity of gold he was wont to use. He commonly painted on
card or vellum, and employed, it is said, a brush composed of hairs
from a squirrel's tail. His works are generally signed "N. H.," and
frequently have a motto and date written round the edge in Latin and
abbreviated.
[Illustration: S. COOPER.
GEORGE MONCK, DUKE OF ALBEMARLE.
(_H.M. the King._)]
What is known as "quality" in works of art is a very elusive factor in
their charm, and it is proportionately difficult to express in words.
Indeed, I might go farther, and say that a large proportion of people
who look upon works of art never realise what it means. Hence it is
always difficult to assign with absolute fairness and accuracy the rank
of a given artist.
There are many things to be taken into consideration, but I think
it may be safely said of Hilliard that he stands well in the front
of the second row of our native miniature painters. He is certainly
inferior in finish and beauty to the Olivers, and his heads are even
more deficient in the wonderful rendering of character and the masterly
execution of Samuel Cooper, but his faces are well drawn, and are
differentiated--far more so, for instance, than are the insipidities of
Kneller and Lely and the early Georgian artists.
We know that he won the admiration of his contemporaries, both
strangers and fellow-countrymen. In Heydock's translation of "Lomazzo
on Painting," published in 1598, we are told that "limning was much
used in former times in church books, as also in drawing by life
in small models of late years by some of our countrymen, as Shoote,
Betts, &c.; but brought to the rare perfection we now see by the most
ingenious, painful, and skilful master, Nicholas Hilliard."
The ornate jewellery which he appears to have painted with such care
was, of course, the fashion of the time, as were the elaborate ruffs,
both of which are well shown in the accompanying portrait of Lady Mary
Sidney, Countess of Pembroke--an extremely interesting miniature, by
the way, which came from Penshurst. This lady was the daughter of Sir
Henry Sidney, and married Henry, second Earl of Pembroke. It was to her
that Sir Philip Sidney dedicated his "Arcadia." She died in her House
at Aldersgate Street, and was buried in Salisbury Cathedral. She was
the subject of the well-known epitaph by Ben Jonson:--
"Underneath this sable hearse
Lies the subject of all verse,
Sidney's sister, Pembroke's mother.
Death, ere thou hast slain another,
Fair and wise and good as she,
Time shall throw a dart at thee."
Penshurst Place, the charming old home of the Sidneys, possesses, or
did possess, the portrait of the painter himself in his thirtieth year.
It is probably also the background in the elaborate and beautiful
miniature by Isaac Oliver, in the Royal Collection, which adorns this
volume (see p. 295). From Penshurst, too, came the profile of Elizabeth
given in this book. I refer to it here because it illustrates so
perfectly what Walpole has said about portraits of Elizabeth, who,
as we have seen, was certainly painted by Hilliard, and it is an apt
criticism on the miniature painting of the time.
[Illustration: S. COOPER.
DUCHESS OF CLEVELAND.
(_Countess of Caledon._)]
[Illustration: O. CROMWELL'S MOTHER.]
[Illustration: S. COOPER.
LADY LEIGH.
(_Sackville Bale Collection._)]
Speaking of the numerous portraits of Elizabeth which exist, he says
there is not a single one to be called beautiful. They are totally
composed of hands and necklaces. A pale Roman nose, a head of hair
loaded with crowns and powdered with diamonds, a vast ruff, a vaster
farthingale, and a bushel of pearls, are the features by which every
one knows them at once. In this connection it may be observed there is
another portrait of Queen Elizabeth, spoken of by Walpole as one of
Hilliard's most capital performances, namely a whole length of her in
robes, sitting on her throne. This was in King Charles I.'s Collection,
and included in the catalogue by Van der Doort, to which frequent
reference has been made, but, so far as I am aware, its whereabouts is
not now known.
Fourteen Hilliards are specified in the above-named catalogue,
including a view of the Spanish Armada. Four of these, portraits, and
copies of older pictures, are now at Windsor, and were once attached
to a gold and enamelled jewel, the work on which, it is surmised,
was probably also Hilliard's, he being, as we have seen, the Court
goldsmith; the portraits are those of Henry VII., Henry VIII., Jane
Seymour, and Edward VI. The latter Van der Doort describes as "meanly
done," "upon a round card." This remarkable example of goldsmith's
work has on one side the roses of York and Lancaster and on the other
a representation of the Battle of Bosworth Field. There are jewelled
badges upon the dress and cap of Henry VII., and the miniature is
dated 1509, the year of his death. In Horace Walpole's copy of Van der
Doort's catalogue, it is noted: "The above jewel and pictures were
done by old Hilliard, and given to the King by young Hilliard, by the
deceased Earl of Pembroke's means."
It is possible, by means of the miniatures of Nicholas Hilliard, to
realise the appearance of many of the personages of Tudor times, and
of Elizabeth's Court in particular. Thus, in the Duke of Buccleuch's
Collection is a portrait, on vellum, of Edward Seymour, Duke of
Somerset; he was the brother of Jane Seymour, uncle of Edward VI., and
was beheaded on Tower Hill, 1552.
Also in the Buccleuch Collection is one of the most beautiful of this
artist's works, namely, a portrait of Alicia Brandon, daughter of
John Brandon, Chamberlain of the City of London. She was the wife of
Hilliard, and was painted by him in her twenty-second year, 1578. The
picture is charming from the vivacity of the features and its delicate
execution. It is circular in form, signed N. H. (connected), and is
preserved in a rose-turned case of logwood with an ivory circular rim.
It was shown in the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition in 1879.
In the Colworth Collection there was formerly a portrait of Darnley,
Earl of Lennox, thus inscribed: "Comes linoz ano Dni 1560 ætatis Suæ
18." I give this description as it is a typical instance of the
abbreviations one commonly finds on Hilliard's miniatures.
[Illustration: ALEXANDER COOPER.
SIR JOHN KING.
(_H.M. the King._)]
[Illustration: S. COOPER.
PORTRAIT OF HIMSELF.
(_Dyce Collection._)]
Mrs. Naylor Leyland owns a portrait of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots,
which is ascribed to Hilliard, and has a circumstantial history. It is
said to have been given by the unfortunate Queen to one of her Maids
of Honour on her marriage, from whom it descended to her grandson, the
second and last Earl of Middleton, and thence to the present possessor.
Of course, it is quite possible that this is the work of Hilliard,
although most improbable that the painter ever saw her. In the case
of another unfortunate lady of the period, namely, Arabella Stuart,
the case is different, and he may quite well have had access to this
ill-fated victim of the fears of James I.
Walpole possessed two of her, one when young, which may be that owned
by the Duke of Buccleuch, representing her as a girl with a baby
face. James I. and his wife were painted by him, as we have already
mentioned, and one portrait of the Scottish Solomon was sold at
Christie's for a very large sum. Of the courtiers of Elizabeth we have
a number of well-known personages, Essex and Dudley, for example; of
Drake when forty-two, in Lord Derby's Collection; and a portrait of
George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland, Elizabeth's champion, dressed as
for a tournament, in an enormous flapped hat, with a glove, the emblem
of his office, fixed on the front of it. This picture is well known
from the engraving by R. White.
At Kensington, in 1865, might have been seen Nicholas Harbon,
Ambassador to Constantinople; Mrs. Holland, one of Elizabeth's Maids
of Honour; Lord Keeper Coventry; Lady Hunsdon; and a portrait of the
poet Spenser, which last is the property of Lord Fitzhardinge, and here
shown.
VI
ISAAC AND
PETER OLIVER,
AND JOHN
HOSKINS
CHAPTER VI
ISAAC AND PETER OLIVER, AND JOHN HOSKINS
Those of my readers who are able to agree with the estimate already
advanced in this work as to the unique position held by Samuel Cooper
in the ranks of British miniature painters, will be able to gauge the
position which may be assigned to Isaac Oliver when they read Walpole's
opinion of his powers. He expresses it in the following terms: "We have
no one," says he, "to put in competition with Isaac Oliver, except it
be our own Cooper." This is tantamount to saying that this painter,
Oliver, was one of the greatest we have ever had, in his own walk of
art. It must be remembered that there were two Olivers--Isaac the
father, and Peter, his eldest son and pupil. Walpole could find no
account of the origin of the family, but he notes that in the elder
painter's pocket-book was a mixture of English and French, a point
not without significance. The connoisseur of Strawberry Hill, whose
opinions on art generally, and on his own magnificent collection in
particular, are so interesting, and which we have so often quoted,
states that the excellence of the elder Oliver was such that "we may
challenge any nation to show a greater master"; and Peacham states that
to Hilliard, in conjunction with Zucchero, has been given the credit of
having instructed "a limner inferior to none in Christendome for the
countenance in small."
The elder Oliver was born in 1555 or 1556. He died in his house at
Blackfriars in 1617, the date of Raleigh's execution, and just a year
after the death of Shakespeare. That he was at work till the close of
his life is clear from the inscription upon one of the finest examples
of his powers, namely, the portrait of the Earl of Dorset, formerly in
the possession of Mr. C. Sackville Bale, sold at Christie's in 1880 for
£750, and now one of the most valuable miniatures in the collection Mr.
John Jones bequeathed to the nation, which is housed in the Victoria
and Albert Museum. It is a full length, nearly ten inches high, and
thus signed, "Isaac Olliuierus fecit 1616."
As in the case of other artists mentioned in this book, I do not think
it necessary to dwell much upon the facts of their careers; what I
think more important, and at least as interesting, is to give some
idea of their relative ability, of the character of their work, and
a more or less critical account of some accessible examples to be
found in this country. That, amplified to an extent not possible in
this volume, is what I set before myself in my preceding works upon
Miniature Painters, and in practice I have not found any better way
of treating the subject. So, then, we may disregard the biographical
details of Oliver's life, of which, I take it, there are indeed very
few to be gleaned. We have settled upon excellent authority his rank
and qualifications as a miniature painter, and seen that he ranks as
second only to the "incomparable Samuel Cooper."