artist which have survived. Probably the largest number is to be found
in the Duke of Buccleuch's magnificent Collection at Montagu House; but
we may refer first of all to those in the Royal Library at Windsor,
and begin with the celebrated full length of Sir Philip Sidney sitting
under a tree in an arcaded garden, which some think conveys an allusion
to the "Arcadia." It is shown on p. 295, and is reproduced on the exact
scale of the original. This, with so many other of the finest of the
old miniatures, was formerly in the Strawberry Hill Collection. It was
sold at West's sale for the paltry sum of £16 5s.
We have evidence of four miniatures being painted for Charles I. when
Duke of York, as is shown by an entry of payment by warrant in the
office books of the Chambers, dated Lincoln, 1617: "To Isaace Oliver
for four several pictures drawn for the Prince His Highness, Forty
pounds." A profile of Anne of Denmark, now at Windsor, may be one of
these, she being the mother of Charles I.; as may also be the portrait
of Henry, Prince of Wales, his brother, which, according to Sir Richard
Holmes, is the finest extant of that Prince. It is described in Charles
I.'s catalogue as follows: "Number 17, done upon the right light, the
biggest limned picture which was made of Prince Henry, being limned in
the set lace ruff and gilded armour and a landskip wherein are some
soldiers and tents, in a square frame, with a sheeting glass over it,
done by Isaace Oliver, five and a quarter inches by four."
The interesting portrait of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, who
was stabbed by Felton at Portsmouth in 1628, is probably a late example
of the master, and is in his Majesty's Collection. It is figured on
p. 126, as is also the interesting miniature of the artist himself in
a tall felt hat (see p. 111), which we may conclude was the height
of fashion of the period, there being one extremely like it in the
National Gallery, worn by James I. The miniature here shown is also in
the King's Collection.
Amongst the miniatures by Oliver which are best known are those of Sir
Kenelm Digby and his family, which were shown at Messrs. Dickinson's
Loan Exhibition of 1880. Comparisons are odious, but it must be
admitted that those belonging to the Burdett-Coutts Collection are in
finer condition than those preserved at the home of the Digbys, namely
Sherborne Castle, Dorset, a picturesque Jacobean mansion given by James
I. to Sir Walter Raleigh. [Illustration: PETITOT.
BY HIMSELF.]
[Illustration: MLLE. FONTANGES.]
[Illustration: HENRIETTE D'ORLEANS.
(_Burdett-Coutts Collection._)]
These interesting portraits were once at Strawberry Hill, where
they hung in "the blue breakfast room." The way they came into the
possession of Horace Walpole is worth telling. It aptly shows how
easily treasures of this kind may be forgotten and lost. Writing
about Peter Oliver's habit of making duplicates of his works, Walpole
says:--
"Since this work was first published a valuable treasure of the works
of this master, and of his father Isaac, was discovered in an old house
in Wales, which belonged to a descendant of Sir Kenelm Digby (Mr.
Watkin Williams). The latest are dated 1633, but being closed in ivory
and ebony cases, and the whole collection locked up in a wainscot box,
they are as perfectly preserved as if newly painted. They all represent
Sir Kenelm and persons related to or connected with him. There are
three portraits of him, six of his beloved wife at different ages, and
three triplicates of his mistress, all three by Isaac Oliver, as is
Lady Digby's mother, which I have mentioned before. But the capital
work is a large miniature copied from Van Dyck of Sir Kenelm, his wife,
and two sons, the most beautiful piece of the size that I believe
exists (see p. 289). There is a duplicate of Sir Kenelm and Lady Digby
from the same picture, and though of not half the volume, still more
highly finished. This last piece is set in gold, richly inlaid with
flowers in enamel, and shuts like a book. All these, with several
others, I purchased at a great price, but they are not to be matched."
It is noteworthy that nearly all the portraits of Sir Kenelm and his
wife ascribed to Isaac Oliver must be by Peter, as Isaac died when the
originals were boy and girl. Sir Kenelm Digby was born in 1603. Isaac
Oliver was buried in October, 1617. One of the portraits is dated
1627. This discrepancy in Walpole's account, wherein, as we have seen
above, he speaks of Sir Kenelm's mistress as being painted by the elder
Oliver, may be owing to his misreading the monogram. The large copy
after Van Dyck of the family group is dated 1635.
Amongst the Digby portraits at Sherborne Castle is that remarkable
one of Venetia Lady Digby lying dead in her bed. This is ascribed to
Peter Oliver. Walpole had six portraits of her at different ages, and
Lord Clarendon speaks of her as "a lady of extraordinary beauty and
of as extraordinary fame." Nor was her husband less remarkable. I
have somewhere seen him described as "the bravest gentleman and the
biggest liar of his time." Be that as it may, he was certainly of
handsome appearance, extraordinary strength, and distinguished as a
soldier, scholar, and courtier. His father was Sir Everard Digby, who
was executed for his share in the Gunpowder Plot. Sir Kenelm renounced
the faith of his father, and was entered at Gloucester Hall, Oxford.
He was on the Continent at an early age, and, returning in 1623, was
knighted by James I. Five years later we hear of him commanding a small
squadron in the Mediterranean. During the Civil War he had the prudence
to retire to France. Returning to England at the Restoration, he lived
at his house in Covent Garden till the year of his death, namely 1665.
His wife, Venetia Anastasia, was the youngest daughter of Sir Edward
Stanley, and was born at Tong Castle, in Shropshire, in 1600. They had
two sons--Kenelm, killed during the Civil War in a skirmish at St.
Neots; and John, who was disinherited by his father, but ultimately
succeeded to a portion of the property.
Judging from the lovely group after Van Dyck which, by the courtesy of
the late lamented Baroness Burdett-Coutts, I am able to show of this
interesting family, these two sons would seem to have inherited the
physical beauty of their parents. Another group not less remarkable,
and in a sense more interesting in this connection, inasmuch as it
is an original work of the artist himself, and not a copy from any
other, is that of the three brothers, Anthony Maria, John, and William
Browne. This noble piece, which measures ten inches by nine, is now at
Burleigh, the owner of which historic house, the Marquess of Exeter,
is descended from the eldest of these young men. The work was known
to Walpole, and was at Cowdray in his time. He thus describes it: "At
Lord Montague's at Cowdray is an invaluable work of Isaac Oliver's.
It represents three brothers of that lord's family, whole lengths
in black. These young gentlemen resemble each other remarkably, a
peculiarity observable in the picture, the motto on which is _figuræ
conformis affectus_. The black dresses are relieved by gold belts and
lace collars, and contrasted by the silver-laced doublet of another
young man, presumably a page, who is entering the room."
This beautiful group is in perfect preservation, of absolutely
superlative quality, and, as we have seen, upon an important scale.
It possesses also the interest of having, with three other pictures,
escaped the disastrous fire at Cowdray in 1793. This fatality is said
to have marked the end of the race of the Lords Montague, and the last
scion of the house lost his life over the Falls of Schaffhausen just at
the time the flames destroyed the old family mansion. It is said that
messengers--one bearing the news of the death of the last Lord Montague
by water and the other of the destruction of the home of the race by
fire--met one another in Paris. Earl Spencer possesses a very fine copy
of this work in oils, painted by Sherwin in 1781.
Any readers who may desire further genealogical details of the brothers
represented will find them in my book on "Miniature Painters, British
and Foreign," pp. 39 and 40.
I am not aware of Isaac Oliver holding any appointment at Court, but
of courtiers and of the aristocracy of his day he must have painted a
great number. This was made clear at the exhibition of the Burlington
Fine Arts Club in 1889, when some five and twenty or thirty more or
less well-authenticated works by Isaac Oliver were shown, besides a
number by Peter Oliver.
That masterpiece of Oliver's, the Earl of Dorset, now in the Jones
Collection, at Kensington, has already been described, and reference
has been made to the portrait of Buckingham belonging to the King.
There was another of "Steenie," by Isaac Oliver, in the Propert
Collection. Mr. Jefferey Whitehead owns, or did own, a couple of
portraits of Sir Francis Drake. Lord Derby possesses one of the
ill-fated Elizabeth of Bohemia.
Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, appears to have been painted oftener,
almost, than any one of his time. Thus, the Duke of Devonshire
possesses two Olivers of him, the King another, and there was one in
the Propert Collection also assigned to him. The "wicked" Countess
of Essex, Frances Howard, afterwards Countess of Somerset, condemned
to death for her share in the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, was also
painted by Oliver. The Earl of Derby and Major-General Sotheby possess
miniatures of her.
[Illustration: PETITOT.
LOUIS XIV.]
[Illustration: CARDINAL MAZARIN.
(_Earl of Carlisle._)]
[Illustration: JAMES II.
(_Burdett-Coutts Collection._)]
[Illustration: CHARLES I.
(_Burdett-Coutts Collection._)]
[Illustration: CARDINAL RICHELIEU.]
There is a passing reference to Isaac Oliver in the very interesting
autobiography of Lord Herbert, of Cherbury. That remarkable man tells
a story of "a Lady, wife to Sir John Ayres, knight, who, finding some
means to get a copy of my picture from Larkin, gave it to Mr. Isaac
[Oliver], the Painter in Blackfriars, and desired him to draw it in
little, after his manner, which being done, she caused it to be set
in gold and enamelled, and so wore it about her neck so low that she
had it under her breasts." Lord Herbert adds that he caught Lady Ayres
lying upon her bed contemplating the miniature!
The temptation to stop and gossip about some of these people, as, for
instance, the lady to whom reference has just been made, is almost
irresistible; in truth it may be said that almost all the people
painted by Oliver are remarkable either for their virtues, their vices,
or their misfortunes; in this latter category must be placed the
unfortunate Arabella Stuart, of whom Major-General Sotheby and Mr. J.
K. D. Wingfield Digby possess examples, the latter owning two.
The number of portraits existing of this lady, of various kinds, is
somewhat remarkable, and I am led to surmise that it may be accounted
for by the sympathy aroused by the fate of this unhappy creature.
I may mention, in support of this conjecture, the existence of a
miniature that belonged to a collection which may be described as the
Stuart Collection, inasmuch as it once belonged to James II., and
has a circumstantial history which we must not stop to go into here,
further than to say that these miniatures are all supposed to possess
historical authenticity, and are works of high quality. Amongst them
is one of Lady Arabella Stuart, ascribed to Peter Oliver. Now, the
ill-fated victim of the political jealousy of James I. ended her days
in the Tower in 1615, and Peter Oliver, whose work it is supposed to
have been, was not born till 1601, or as some say 1604; hence it is
almost impossible that he could or did paint it from life. The fact
that he painted her at all, a political prisoner, whose reason had
given way before the artist was in his teens, points to an interest
in her fate, whether felt by him or by others, such as led, as I have
said, to a multiplication of her portraits.
Catherine Cary, Countess of Nottingham, whose portrait is in the Duke
of Buccleuch's Collection, and Lady Teresa Shirley are both ladies with
stories which belong to the byways of history.
Before leaving Isaac Oliver, there is one other kind of work of which
he did a good deal, and to which I must refer, namely, the copying in
miniature of paintings by the old masters, of which--but this is by
the way--Peter Oliver appears to have done still more. Isaac did not
live to finish all his work of this nature, as is shown by an entry in
the catalogue of Charles I. of a "great limned piece of the Burial of
Christ, which was invented by Isaac Oliver, and was left unfinished at
his decease, and now, by His Majesty's appointment finished by his son
Peter Oliver."
Peter Oliver erected a monument to his father in the Church of St.
Anne's, Blackfriars; it was a bust, and both the monument and the
church perished in the Great Fire of 1666. Vertue recalls having seen
a model of the bust; and with a copy of the entry occurring in the
register of this church I may conclude my remarks on Isaac Oliver:
"Isaack Oliver buried 2nd October 1617. Mr. Peter Oliver buried
September 22 1647."
PETER OLIVER
Peter Oliver was the eldest son of his father, and was born, as we have
before observed, at the very opening of the seventeenth century. There
is a portrait of him by Hanneman, a Dutch painter who came to this
country soon after Van Dyck, at Hampton Court, which, if we may trust
it, shows him to have been a man with dark brown hair and dark, dreary
eyes. As he did not live to be fifty years of age, dying two years
before the execution of Charles I., he must have worked hard. The Van
der Doort catalogue, of which frequent mention has been made, includes
thirteen of the paintings once in the possession of Charles, which
were copied in water colours by Peter Oliver, as were portraits of the
Stuart family.
He married, and had children, and Vertue tells a story, upon the
authority of Russell the painter, who was connected with the Olivers,
which shows that Peter Oliver's work for and in connection with the
Court was well known to Charles II. We do not hear much of the "Merry
Monarch" as a patron of art, nor as a model of filial affection, but
some motive or other took him _incognito_, we are told, to Isleworth on
a visit to the widow of Peter Oliver to make inquiries about miniatures
which she was supposed to possess. "The King went very privately ... to
see them, the widow showed several finished and unfinished; asked if
she would sell them, she said she had a mind the King should see them
first, and if he did not purchase them, she would think of disposing
of them; the King discovered himself, on which she produced some more
pictures which she seldom showed. The King desired her to set her
price; she said she did not care to make a price with His Majesty, she
would leave it to him, but promised to look over her husband's books,
and to let him know what prices his father, the late King, had paid.
The King took away what he liked, and sent Rogers to Mrs. Oliver with
the option of £1,000, or an annuity of £300 for life, and she chose the
latter. Some years afterwards, the King's mistresses having begged all
or most of these pictures, Mrs. Oliver said, on hearing it, that if
she had thought that the King would have given them to such unworthy
persons, he never should have had them. This reached the Court, the
poor woman's salary was stopped, and she never received it afterwards."
_Apropos_ of the return of the many treasures which we know were
dispersed at the close of the Civil War, I may mention an instance of a
piece which was formerly in the Royal Collection, and has gone back
to Windsor of recent times. It is an interesting work by Peter Oliver,
dated 1628, and is a copy of Raphael's "St. George," about half the
size of the original, which latter, by the way, was presented to Henry
VII. by the Duke of Urbino, in return for the Order of the Garter. The
copy found its way back to the Royal Collection in 1883, having been
purchased at the sale at Christie's of the Hamilton Palace treasures in
that year.
[Illustration: PETITOT LE VIEUX.
(_Earl Dartrey._)]
[Illustration: PETITOT.
(_From a print in the British Museum._)]
[Illustration: CHARLES II.
(_Burdett-Coutts Collection._)]
Sir Richard Holmes, to whom I am indebted for the information, surmises
that the copy may have been given by Charles to the Marquess of
Hamilton. The original painting, one regrets to say, was sold at the
Rebellion; it is now the property of the Russian Crown, and hangs in
the Hermitage at St. Petersburg.
There is an interesting entry in John Evelyn's diary just after the
Restoration, which runs as follows: "I went with some of my relations
to the Court, to show them His Majesty's cabinet and closet of
varieties, the rare miniatures of Peter Oliver after Raphael, Titian,
and other masters, which I infinitely esteem."
Judging from the amount of work in the shape of copies of the old
masters, which we know to have been executed by Peter Oliver, and,
further, the comparatively small number of portraits by him one meets
with, it would seem probable that he did less in the way of portraiture
than his father. Thus at the Burlington Fine Arts Club exhibition works
assigned to Isaac Oliver were at least three times as numerous as
those assigned to Peter Oliver. I may mention here that besides the
Digbys, the younger artist was also credited in this collection with
having painted the Countess of Nottingham and the Earls of Somerset and
Southampton, Lady Arabella Stuart, and others.
Where there are two artists of the same name working at the same
period, as in the case of the Olivers, mistakes easily occur, and we
have seen an instance of it in the case of Walpole's error with regard
to the Digby family, as shown on a preceding page. I may therefore call
collectors' particular attention, in distinguishing the works of these
great limners, to the fact that the elder Oliver signed his works with
a monogram F, whilst the younger used the initials P. O.
connected.
JOHN HOSKINS
The researches both of Vertue and of Walpole have resulted in
discovering but very little about the career of that excellent
miniature painter John Hoskins, and both quote an extract from Graham's
"English School," to this effect: "He [Hoskins] was bred to face
painting in oils, but afterwards taking to miniature, far exceeded
what he did before. He drew Charles, his Queen, and most of the Court,
and had two considerable disciples, Alexander and Samuel Cooper, the
latter of whom became much the more eminent limner"; and though it
must be conceded there is not much to be gleaned about the life of the
man, it is evident that he had a considerable share of the Court and
aristocratic patronage in his day.
The Earl of Wharncliffe possesses, or did possess, portraits of the
Countess of Carlisle, as well as one of Oliver Cromwell. Mr. Whitehead
does, or did, possess one of Lucy, Viscountess Falkland; also one of
John Gauden, Bishop of Worcester. Lord Derby owns a portrait of the
ill-fated Henrietta Maria; the Duke of Devonshire one of Thomas Hobbs,
philosopher; General Sotheby owns portraits of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey
and Sir Charles Lucas.
We miss in the works of Hoskins the minute touch of Hilliard, the
refinement of the Olivers, and the breadth of Samuel Cooper; yet Sir
Kenelm Digby, in his "Discourses," says that "by his paintings he
pleased the public more than Van Dyck." Horace Walpole allows his heads
to have great truth and nature, but finds fault with the carnations as
"too bricky and wanting a degradation and variety of tints."
The few lines quoted above virtually sum up the approximate rank and
position of John Hoskins, and I am not aware that recent biographers
have discovered anything of importance to add to them. That he was
master to such an artist as Samuel Cooper, and that his pupil's manner
was clearly formed on that of the master, constitute, perhaps, the
strongest claim that can be urged for Hoskins in connection with this
subject.
There is a great deal of truth to nature in Hoskins's work. Elsewhere
I have termed his style virile and unaffected, and I do not know that
I can find more appropriate epithets. At the same time, the justice
of Walpole's criticism, that Hoskins is defective in colour, must be
admitted. It is quite true that the carnations are too bricky, and
wanting in gradation and variety of tint. This deficiency, which is a
very serious one in miniature painting, depriving the flesh tints of
their charm, may be traced in part to the medium employed. The amount
of body colour used by limners of this period was so great, that the
transparency of tone attained by later painters was impossible.
The work of the incomparable Cooper himself is not free from this
defect, and we see it carried to excess both in the case of Cooper's
master and in that of his pupil Flatman. All three are marked by
a certain dryness of colour attaining to brickiness, only Cooper
generally avoids the extremes into which the other two artists fall.
This fault, it may be said, is characteristic of examples I have seen
and possess.
The character of Charles I., whose melancholy visage Hoskins has drawn
in a miniature now at Windsor, and here shown, is extremely well
rendered. In the Duke of Rutland's valuable collection at Belvoir
Castle there is an interesting portrait of Charles, when Prince of
Wales, aged fourteen, ascribed to Hoskins, but infinitely inferior in
the rendering of expression. Lord Carlisle owns, I believe, a replica
of the last named. One of the finest examples of the master that I have
met with is a portrait of Percy, tenth Earl of Northumberland, now in
the collection of Lord Aldenham, and this nobleman also possesses a
portrait of Elizabeth, wife of Frederick, fifth King of Bohemia.
The question has been raised whether there were two John Hoskinses,
father and son. It will be noticed that in an extract from Graham
which I have given he speaks of but one Hoskins, and those who argue
that there were two appear to rest their contention mainly upon the
foundation of a variation in the manner of signing the portrait. Thus
the mark + is said to distinguish the works of the father from those
of the son, which have I. H. simply. But if this be the test, then it
may be urged that there were several John Hoskinses, since amongst the
miniatures shown at Burlington House from Windsor, and by the Duke of
Buccleuch, ascribed to Hoskins, there were the following different
signatures: H. only, I. H. 1645, I. H. fc, I. H. (connected).
I am unable to give the date of the birth of John Hoskins, but he died
in 1664, and was buried in St. Paul's, Covent Garden.
VII
SAMUEL
COOPER
[Illustration: S. LIOTARD.
LADY MARY WORTLEY MONTAGU.]
[Illustration: AFTER SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS.
AMELIA, DUCHESS OF LEINSTER.
(_Earl of Charlemont._)]
CHAPTER VII
SAMUEL COOPER
As Hilliard has made us familiar with the features of the most
distinguished members of the Court of Elizabeth, so, a hundred years
later, did Samuel Cooper, that "admirable workman and good company"
as Pepys describes him, draw for us on a few inches of cardboard the
presentment of the Cromwell family and many of the men and beautiful
women who made up the _entourage_ of the second Charles.
Samuel Cooper, in whom, it has been said, the art of miniature painting
culminated, was born in London, in 1609. He came of an artistic stock,
his uncle being John Hoskins, himself a painter of no mean reputation,
as we have just seen. Samuel was instructed by his elder brother
Alexander in the art of limning, and both brothers are reputed to have
been the pupils of their uncle. Be that as it may, Samuel spent much of
his life on the Continent, and was intimate with many of the eminent
men of his day. Pepys frequently mentions the artist in terms of warm
commendation. Possibly the fact that he was an excellent musician
endeared him to the amiable diarist, who, under the date "1668, July
10th," says: "To Cooper's, and there find my wife.... And here he do
work finely, though I fear it will not be so like as I expected; but
now I understand his great skill in music, his playing and setting to
the French lute most excellently, and he speaks French, and indeed is
an excellent man." This visit is explained by a previous entry, on
March 29th: "Harris ... hath persuaded me to have Cooper draw my wife's
portrait, which, though it cost £30, yet will I have done." Thirty
pounds in those days was, of course, a considerable sum of money, but
it seems to have been Cooper's usual price for a miniature, as we learn
from the record of another visit to the painter in the pages of the
immortal diary: "To Cooper's, where I spent all the afternoon with my
wife and girl, seeing him make an end of her picture, which he did to
my great content, though not so great as I confess I expected, being
not satisfied in the greatness of the resemblance, nor in the blue
garment; but it is most certainly a most rare piece of work as to the
painting. He hath £30 for his work, and the chrystal and case and gold
case comes to £8 3s. 4d., and which I sent him this night that I might
be out of his debt." Elsewhere Pepys relates visiting the artist's
studio and being much struck with the miniature of "one Swinfen,
Secretary to my Lord Manchester.... This fellow died in debt and never
paid Cooper for this picture.... Cooper himself did buy it [from the
creditors], and give £25 out of his purse for it, for what he was to
have had but £30."
[Illustration: UNKNOWN.
A LADY.
(_Lord Tweedmouth._)]
[Illustration: GASPAR NETSCHER.
SARAH JENNINGS, DUCHESS OF MARLBOROUGH.
(_Charles Butler, Esq._)]
The market value of Cooper's miniatures, however, very rapidly rose.
Thus we find Walpole writing in February, 1758, to Sir Horace Mann:
"But our glaring extravagance is in the constant high price given
for pictures.... I know but one dear picture not sold (this was at
Mr. Furnese's auction)--Cooper's head of O. Cromwell, an unfinished
miniature. They asked me four hundred pounds for it."
Of this masterpiece, which Cunningham correctly assumes to be "the one
mentioned elsewhere as in the possession of Lady Franklin, widow of Sir
Thomas, a descendant of Cromwell, of which there is an exquisite copy
in the Harley Collection at Welbeck, made in 1723 by Bernard Lens,"
Dallaway says it is related in the family that Cromwell surprised
Cooper while he was copying the portrait and indignantly took it away
with him. The original was shown at Burlington House in 1879, being
then in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch. It formerly belonged
to Mr. Henry Cromwell Frankland, of Chichester, who inherited it
through a daughter of Lady Elizabeth Claypole. The Lady Frankland (not
Franklin) mentioned above was the grand-daughter of Oliver Cromwell.
The Protector and his family seem to have been very favourite subjects
of the painter. Thus in the Loan Collection of 1865, out of some
eighty or ninety miniatures ascribed to Cooper there were no less than
seven of Oliver Cromwell, and almost as many of his daughters and of
Richard Cromwell. A very beautiful example is the portrait of Oliver's
second and favourite daughter, Elizabeth Claypole, who is said to have
upbraided her father for his share in the death of Charles I. and
his cruelty in sanctioning the execution of the Royalist agent, Dr.
Hewitt. It is signed S. C. 1655 and belongs to the Duke of Devonshire,
who also possesses a very fine portrait of the Protector, of which a
French critic, M. de Conches, has remarked that Cooper was a man who
knew how to enlarge the style of a miniature, and that this particular
specimen was as vigorous as oil, perfectly modelled and firm in touch.
In the same collection is the profile drawing on paper in pen and brown
ink from which Houbraken engraved his portrait. At Stafford House is
another portrait of Oliver, and also a very interesting example of the
pencil studies from which the artist used to paint his miniatures.
It was in connection with this portrait that Walpole gave it as his
opinion that "If his portrait of Cromwell could be so enlarged [to the
size of one of Van Dyck's pictures], I do not know but Van Dyck would
appear less great by comparison." This is the portrait referred to
by Walpole above. The Duke of Buccleuch possesses another Cooper of
unsurpassed interest--Cromwell's Latin Secretary. This portrait of the
poet fully bears out the description of Aubrey, who says that Milton
"had light browne haire. His complexion exceeding fayre, oval face, his
eie a dark gray. He was a spare man."
[Illustration: W. DERBY.
DUCHESS OF HAMILTON.
(_Earl of Derby._)]
[Illustration: JAMES NIXON.
MISS KITTY MUDGE.
(_Canon Raffles Flint._)]
Another characteristic of Cooper's work is that he frequently leaves
his miniatures unfinished, being content, apparently, as soon as he
had seized the likeness. It was this peculiarity, doubtless, that
gave rise to Walpole's disparaging, and, it must be contended, unjust
remark that "Cooper, with so much merit, had two defects: his skill
was confined to a mere head; his drawing of the neck and shoulders so
incorrect and untoward that it seems to account for the number of his
works unfinished. It looks as if he was sensible how small a way his
talent extended[!] This very properly accounts for the other [defect],
his want of grace, a signal deficiency in a painter of portraits, yet
how seldom possessed."
As to this latter deficiency, it is very much a matter of opinion.
Those who have seen the portrait at Windsor of the Duke of Monmouth
when young will hardly be disposed to allow it; indeed, when we
have such an amazing power of seizing character, and such breadth
of delineation, we can afford to dispense with mere superficial
prettiness. And, to return to Walpole's first contention, it is surely
unlikely that the artist who could portray such subtleties of character
and expression as Cooper did should not have been able to extend his
talent "so small a way" as to draw necks and shoulders if he had been
so minded.
In the Royal Collection is a head of Charles II., which with another
of George Monck, Duke of Albemarle, and that of Monmouth mentioned
above, form a trio of portraits difficult to surpass for character and
simplicity, although the two last are unfinished. There is, however,
no want of finish in the elaborate picture of Charles II., wearing the
Robes of the Garter, which belongs to the Duke of Richmond, and is
preserved at Goodwood. It is one of the largest and finest examples of
the master, and gives more dignity to that cynical voluptuary than any
portrait of him with which I am acquainted.
It has been said that Cooper's portraits of women are inferior to his
portraits of men, and, on the whole, I think this must be conceded.
In the Dyce Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum will be found
a series of fourteen more or less unfinished miniatures attributed to
Samuel Cooper, and shown with a pocket-book in which they were found,
which formerly belonged to Mr. Edwin H. Lawrence.
I have used the word "attributed" advisedly, because several of these
miniatures, attractive as they are, seem to me to lack the supreme
quality of Samuel Cooper's work. Some, it has been suggested, recall
Flatman[3] rather, or, as I think more likely, Dixon. They are in
various stages of completion, and show the artist's method of working;
well drawn and broadly treated, they are excellent work, and most
interesting, technically speaking.
[Footnote 3: Thomas Flatman was a briefless barrister and poet, who
imitated but never equalled Cooper's work, although Vertue pronounces
him equal to Hoskins. His portrait by Lely is in the National Portrait
Gallery.]
The biographical details to be gleaned of this English master miniature
painter seem to be meagre in the extreme, and still slighter are they
in the case of his elder brother Alexander. I recall two examples of
the latter's work, both in the Royal Library at Windsor; one a portrait
of Sir John King, a highly successful lawyer of his day, a favourite
of King Charles II., who intended to make him Attorney-General; but
he died when only thirty-eight, and lies buried in the Temple Church.
Granger says of him: "Such was his reputation and so extensive his
practice that in the latter part of his life his fees amounted to forty
and fifty pounds a day." His portrait is given on p. 141. The other is
of James Stuart, created second Duke of Richmond in 1641. This nobleman
is noteworthy as being one of the four who offered their lives to save
King Charles I.
[Illustration: R. COSWAY, R.A.
ISABELLE, MARCHIONESS OF HERTFORD.
(_Meynell-Ingram Collection._)]
[Illustration: S. SHELLEY.
PORTRAIT OF A GENTLEMAN.
(_Miss Kendall._)]
[Illustration: S. COLLINS.
LADY FRANCES RADCLIFFE.
(_Earl of Carlisle._)]
There is great strength and force of character in the portrait of this
staunch Royalist. Technically, however, both pieces are inferior to the
work of Samuel Cooper.
[Illustration: W. DERBY.
LADY ELIZABETH HAMILTON.
(_Earl of Derby._)]
VIII
PETITOT
CHAPTER VIII
PETITOT
As we saw in a previous chapter, it is to a Frenchman, Jean Toutin,
that the credit of applying enamel to portraiture must be given. It
may be remarked, in passing, that it is somewhat remarkable that
this difficult but beautiful process should come into use just as
the older and decorative enamelling fell into decay. Jean Toutin was
assisted by pupils, amongst whom one stands pre-eminent, so much so
that the fame of the early professors of this art, including that of
Toutin himself, may be said to have become merged in the reputation of
Petitot, and everything in the shape of a portrait in enamel of that
period is commonly assigned, one might almost say without hesitation,
to Jean Petitot, very often, it is needless to add, upon the slenderest
grounds. We are fortunate to possess in this country a considerable
number of examples of the portraiture we are about to discuss. These
may be seen and studied in the Jones Collection at the Victoria
and Albert Museum. A comparison of them will show how wide are the
differences existing between works ostensibly by the same artist, to
whom we may now return.
Petitot came of a family of French origin, but was born at Geneva,
where his parents, having adopted the reformed religion, had settled.
Paul, the father of Jean Petitot, was a wood-carver. His son is
thought by some of his biographers, of whom there are several, to have
commenced life as a goldsmith and jeweller. We have already seen how
close was the connection between the various occupations of goldsmith
and jeweller, enameller and miniature painter, and this connection
was still existing at the beginning of the seventeenth century, when
Petitot was born. We need not stop to inquire precisely into the early
stages of our artist's career, but we may gather that he applied
himself to an occupation which was the fashion of the time, namely,
the enrichment of gems with ornaments, such as flowers and the like,
in enamel; and we may safely conclude that he became proficient,
for, after a sojourn in France, he came to England when he was about
twenty-eight. Arrived in London in 1634 or 1635, Petitot proceeded to
show the Court jeweller his work in enamel; this led to an introduction
to the King. Charles I., a passionate lover of art, as we know, must
have appreciated the artist's ability, since we find that he assigned
him an apartment in the palace at Whitehall.
By great good fortune, the young Petitot had the advantage of the
protection of a Genevese, physician to the King, and a celebrated
chemist, Sir Turquet de Mayerne. Such a patron and colleague must
have been of the utmost assistance to our artist in this stage of his
career, since he was able to further his chemical researches, and aid
him in experiments in vitrification which resulted in the painter's
palette being much enriched and his methods perfected. I may remark, by
the way, there is a very characteristic portrait of Sir Turquet, after
Rubens, at Hampton Court.
[Illustration: R. COSWAY, R.A.
RICHARD AND MARIA COSWAY.]
But, in addition to the scientific help which Petitot's countryman was
able to afford, the artist enjoyed the advantage of instruction from
the King's chief portrait painter, Sir Anthony Van Dyck; and it is
significant of the close relationship which probably existed between
the two artists that the copies which Petitot made from the great
Fleming's work are esteemed as amongst his most exquisite productions,
combining grace and freedom with marvellous exactness, in spite of the
minuteness of the scale. It is one of these copies of Van Dyck, namely
the whole length of Rachel de Rouvigny, Countess of Southampton, that
Horace Walpole does not hesitate to call "indubitably the most capital
work in enamel in the world.... It is nine and three-quarter inches
high, by five and three-quarter inches wide, and though the enamel is
not perfect in some trifling parts, the execution is the boldest, and
the colouring the most rich and beautiful that can be imagined. It is
dated 1642."
He also mentions a portrait of Buckingham, painted about the same time.
Three years later we find Petitot arrived in Paris, led to take refuge
in France, there can be little doubt, by the troubles which attended
the outbreak of civil war in this country. He was favourably received
by Cardinal Mazarin, and seems to have established himself at the
French Court with the same facility that he had done in the case of the
English Court, as we find him installed in the Louvre and in receipt of
a pension from Le Grand Monarque.
The portraits of Louis XIV. by Petitot may be termed almost
innumerable, for reasons which I hope to show by and by.
Five or six years after his return to France he married Madeleine
Cuper, and a certain Jacques Bordier, of whom more anon, married her
sister Margaret.
The brothers-in-law worked together for many years, Bordier being
responsible for the draperies and backgrounds of the portraits and
Petitot for the exquisite details of the features. This art partnership
lasted until the death of Bordier, in 1684. Petitot remained in Paris
till 1687, a period of forty-two years. He would have quitted France
earlier, namely at the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, in 1685, but
Louis was clearly unwilling to part with him. The King shut up the
painter, whose Protestant origin we have already mentioned, in Fort
l'Evêque, and sent the eloquent Bossuet to convert him. To regain his
liberty "he signed like the rest," and escaped to Geneva. By this time
the artist was in his eightieth year, but his powers of vision and the
cunning of his hand appear to have been unabated. At any rate, he was
overwhelmed, we are told, with commissions, and retired to Vevey to
escape the importunity of his patrons. He lived four years longer, and
was carried off by a sudden illness in a day, "as he was painting his
wife," says Walpole.
[Illustration: R. COSWAY, R.A.
LADY CAROLINE HOWARD.
(_Earl of Carlisle._)]
[Illustration: WILLIAM, FIFTH DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE.
(_Earl of Carlisle._)]
[Illustration: LADY HORATIA SEYMOUR.]
A mention has been made of Bordier as Petitot's brother-in-law; and I
may here point out that according to Monsieur Reiset, the compiler of
the catalogue of the Louvre, there were two Bordiers who worked with
Petitot in England, namely Jacques, to whom reference has already been
made, and Peter Bordier. I do not know that there is much to be learned
about these _collaborateurs_ of Petitot, but of the two Peter seems
the better known, and is indeed reputed to have been the master of
Petitot. He remained in England after Petitot left it, and painted for
the Parliament a memorial of the Battle of Naseby, which was presented
to Fairfax. It was in the shape of a watch. Walpole purchased it from
the collection at Thoresby, whither it came from the executors of the
famous Roundhead general. It will be found fully described in the
"Anecdotes of Painting."
_Apropos_ of the Bordiers, I may mention that Petitot had a very large
family, namely, eight daughters and nine sons; but only one, so far
as I know, namely Jean, who is known as Petitot le fils, displayed
anything of his father's artistic talent. This younger Petitot was
patronised by our King Charles II. He was born in 1650, settled in
England, and married Madeleine Bordier, the daughter of his father's
colleague. He died in London, and after his death his family removed
to Dublin. His work was distinctly inferior to his father's, both in
colour and in finish. The Earl of Dartrey, who possesses a number of
enamels, has amongst his valuable collection "Petitot le vieux par luy
mesme," also "Petitot fils and his wife." The two latter are inscribed
as follows: "Petitot fait par luy mesme d'age de 33 ans 1685."
"Petitot a fait ce portrait à Paris en Janvier 1690 qui est sa femme."
Another son of the elder Petitot rose to be a Major-General in the
British Army.
Besides the younger Petitot, a number of imitators and copyists
of the elder may be named. Amongst these were his contemporaries
Perrot and Chatillon, the engraver. Then there is Jacques Philippe
Ferrand, who studied under Mignard; he was a member of the Academy
and a _valet-de-chambre_ to Louis XIV. His father, Louis Ferrand,
had been physician to the preceding monarch. At a later date we
find Mademoiselle Chavant, who painted at Sèvres at the end of the
eighteenth century; Moïse Constantin, who was an enameller, and also
painted on porcelain. He was a Genevese, but lived at Paris, and was
painter to the King, 1726-8. Four more Genevese, also enamellers, may
be named, all of whom painted copies of Petitot, namely, Alexandre de
la Chana, Dufey, Lambert, and J. G. Soutter.
When we come to know of all these imitators or followers of Petitot,
we begin to understand the enormous quantity of work attributed to him
by the uninitiated; but difficult as it may be for the unpractised eye
to discriminate, there may very well be a large number of works which
are from the hand of Petitot himself, because, as we have seen, he
spent a long and laborious life, and there was in his time a demand
for this particular kind of portraiture far in excess of anything like
modern requirements. That demand arose from the use of these enamel
portraits for snuff-boxes, which were then so largely employed, not
only for personal use, but as diplomatic presents. The amount of taste
and labour bestowed upon these objects may be realised by those who
will study the Le Noir Collection at the Louvre, the many fine pieces
at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and last, but not least, those shown
at Hertford House. They were, of course, extremely expensive, and
such was their artistic charm that we do not wonder at people making
a hobby of collecting them. Thus, we are told, Frederick the Great
owned 1,500 snuff-boxes; then there was the Comte de Brieulle, the
favourite minister of the King of Saxony, who was said to have owned
300 costumes, with a walking-stick and snuff-box appropriate to each.
This was the nobleman of whom Frederick the Great remarked that he had
"tant de perruques et si peu de tête."
[Illustration: R. COSWAY, R.A.
GEORGE IV. WHEN PRINCE OF WALES.
(_Shaftesbury family._)]
These _boits aux portraits_ were in fashionable use during the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. We have seen how Louis XIV.
employed Petitot as far back as 1645, and we read of a portrait of
Louis XVI. when Dauphin being sent to Marie Antoinette on her arrival
in 1770. The picture was by P. A. Hall, the most distinguished
miniaturist in France, and cost 2,664 francs. The box in which it was
mounted contained seventy-five brilliants, costing over seventy-eight
thousand francs, or nearly thirty times as much. The production
of portraits for these snuff-boxes assumed the proportions of a
manufactory at the French Court during the eighteenth century; thus the
archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs contain entries showing
that enamel portraits were made by the dozen, and one Bruckmann, a
Swede, supplied as many as nineteen at a time.
I may mention with regard to the illustrations of Petitot here shown
that the portrait of Cardinal Richelieu is mounted in a lovely chased
gold and jasper snuff-box, which once belonged to the King of Saxony.
The Louis XIV. is also upon a snuff-box. The Cardinal Mazarin comes
from the Earl of Carlisle's celebrated collection at Castle Howard.
The Charles I. on a preceding page was at Strawberry Hill, and Walpole
thus speaks of it: "I have a fine head of Charles I., for which he
probably sat, as it is not like any I have seen by Van Dyck. My
portrait came from one of his [Petitot's] sons, who was a Major in our
service, and died a Major-General at Northallerton 1764." This now
belongs to the Burdett-Coutts Collection, as does the Charles II., the
extremely fine James II., and also, I may remind the reader, the lovely
Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans, perhaps the most beautiful of all his
works, and reproduced on p. 151.
A few words may be said in conclusion as to the painter's method. He
is reported to have generally used plates of gold or silver, seldom
copper, for the foundation of his miniatures. His signed works are
excessively rare. The Duke of Buckingham, dated 1640, to which I have
already referred, is signed, however, and in the Louvre there is an
example bearing a date, but these are exceptions. The beautiful borders
which, in the shape of wreaths of enamelled flowers, are to be met with
around his works, such as that in the Jones Collection, for example,
are the work of Jules Legarré, goldsmith to the King, with whom there
is little doubt Jean Petitot must have worked in the execution of
commissions for the Court.
[Illustration: R. COSWAY, R.A.
LADY CAROLINE DUNCOMBE.
(_W. B. Stopford, Esq._)]
[Illustration: THE LADIES GEORGINA AND HARRIET CAVENDISH.
(_Earl of Carlisle._)]
IX
SOME
GEORGIAN
ARTISTS
[Illustration: R. COSWAY, R.A.
BY HIMSELF.
(_National Portrait Gallery._)]
[Illustration: LADY HAMILTON.
(_J. H. Anderdon, Esq._)]
[Illustration: A. PLIMER.
LADY THERESA STRANGWAYS.]
CHAPTER IX
SOME GEORGIAN ARTISTS
It is a hundred years from the death of Samuel Cooper, which was in
1672, to the time when Cosway, Smart, and Humphrey may be said to have
established their reputation as miniature painters of the first rank.
Thus Richard Cosway was elected Royal Academician in 1773, and Ozias
Humphrey, having made his start in life and obtained Royal patronage,
set out the same year with Romney for Italy. Five years later John
Smart was made Vice-President of the Incorporated Society of Artists.
This century, it will be observed, takes in the whole of the early
Georgian period; and it is a time of great dearth and barrenness in
our subject, indeed, of art generally, in this country. When the three
distinguished artists I have just named, Petitot and the two or three
good enamellers we had, such as Meyer and Moser, whom I have dealt with
elsewhere--I say, when these names are excepted, practically none of
the first importance remain.
Lawrence Crosse (1724-1784), with his somewhat heavy and insipid
style, his fondness for blue drapery--so well shown in the Duke
of Portland's Collection--and the Lens family, with their somewhat
puzzling personality, may be named. There was also some good work
done by stray artists like Gaspar Netscher, whose rendering of the
imperious Sarah Jennings from the collection of Mr. Charles Butler I
give on p. 177. Then there was the eccentric Jean Etienne Liotard, who
was born at Geneva in 1702 and died there in the first year of the
French Revolution. He was an artist of great ability, but of somewhat
irregular habits and uncertain methods of work, and was known in Paris
as "le Turc."
Oriental costumes had a fascination for him, and some of his finest
drawings are of figures in flowing Eastern robes. Walpole criticises
him and says his likenesses were as exact as possible; Sir Joshua
Reynolds seems to have been jealous of him and sneers at his style.
Probably his best work was in pastel. He was patronised by Maria
Theresa, and by Royalty in this country. The Museum at Amsterdam has of
late years been enriched by several examples bequeathed by descendants.
I confess to finding great charm in his work; so far as I know, he is
unrepresented in our National collections, except by some drawings in
the print-room of the British Museum. In the Salle des Dessins at the
Louvre, however, is a striking full-length figure of a woman in Russian
costume; and the Bessborough family possess works by him, he having met
the Earl of Bessborough of his day at Constantinople and enjoyed that
nobleman's patronage.
[Illustration: R. COSWAY, R.A.
LADY ORDE.
(_Sir A. J. Campbell-Orde, Bart._)]
I give examples of two excellent English artists of this period whose
work is very pleasing without being, perhaps, of the first rank, viz.,
James Nixon, born within a year or two of Ozias Humphrey--that is, in
1741 (his Miss Kitty Mudge is marked by great refinement); and Samuel
Collins, whose Lady Frances Radcliffe is shown on p. 185; he was the
master of Humphrey, and enjoyed a great reputation at Bath, which he
took with him to Dublin.
In much the same category as the two foregoing may be placed Samuel
Shelley, though personally I prefer Collins and Nixon, as Shelley's
drawing is often defective, not to speak of other faults, traceable,
no doubt, to his origin and want of training--for he was a self-taught
genius, born in Whitechapel, in 1750. He is said to have founded his
style upon that of Sir Joshua Reynolds; if so, he fell very far short
of his master. He devoted much time also to female subjects, treated
allegorically, such as "Chastity," which was engraved. His book
illustrations are reckoned inferior to his miniatures. Some examples of
his work may be seen at the Victoria and Albert Museum.
The number of miniature painters of about the calibre of Shelley
who belong to this period--that is to say, the latter half of the
eighteenth century--is so great that I can, in a chat about miniatures,
only mention a few of them.
The William Derby whose attractive portraits of Lady Elizabeth Hamilton
and the Duchess of Hamilton adorn these pages was a Birmingham man,
probably best known by his drawings for Lodge's "Portraits of
Illustrious Personages." He was assisted by a son, who lived until
1873. The work of the elder was marked by great care and minuteness.
He copied all the family portraits for the Earl of Derby, and was a
frequent exhibitor at the Academy and elsewhere.
The Lady Elizabeth Hamilton, shown on p. 189, was daughter of the sixth
Duke of Hamilton; the Duchess of Hamilton is, of course, Elizabeth
Gunning, Duchess of Hamilton and afterwards of Argyll, one of the two
famous Irish beauties who took the town by storm in "Horry" Walpole's
time, and whose career has been so often narrated.
I also give her sister, Maria Gunning, who became Countess of Coventry,
and died an early victim to cosmetics.
No doubt, it has often occurred to my readers that there ought to be
a British national collection of miniatures. It is a reproach that
none such exists. Miniature painting is a branch of art which has been
flourishing amongst us for three centuries at least, and it has been
carried to great perfection; no country can show more beautiful work of
the kind, and in the number, as well as in the charm, of its miniatures
England is unsurpassed. Yet no attempt has ever been made to procure a
permanent collection. Had such efforts been made, say even a generation
ago, examples might have been obtained at prices vastly below what
would have to be paid in order to acquire them nowadays, and many
precious works might have been secured.
As we all know, the sums realised by fine miniatures, especially of
ladies, and by men like Cosway and his pupils the Plimers, by Smart or
Engleheart, to say nothing of historical works by Hilliard and Samuel
Cooper, are enormous. Such a national collection would be attractive
and instructive in the highest degree--attractive to lovers of art and
history, instructive to students, who could hardly fail to benefit
by the study of such work as might have been, long ere this, brought
together, whilst the miniature painters of our day clearly stand in
need of such artistic training. Finally, let the collector try to
realise what valuable opportunities such a collection would afford
for the comparison of style, for identification, and for instruction
generally in this fascinating subject.
[Illustration: O. HUMPHREY, R.A.
CAROLINE OF ANSPACH.]
[Illustration: J. SMART.
LADY CLIVE.
(_Earl of Powis._)]
[Illustration: J. SMART.
PORTRAIT OF A LADY.
(_Miss Kendall._)]
[Illustration: LORD CLIVE.
(_Earl of Powis._)]
[Illustration: AFTER G. ROMNEY.
OZIAS HUMPHREY, R.A.]
X
RICHARD
COSWAY
CHAPTER X
RICHARD COSWAY
Probably there is no one miniature painter whose name is so familiar
to the general reader as that of Richard Cosway, there is no one whose
works in this particular branch of art are more admired, no one more
frequently copied, and, as a consequence, no one whose miniatures or
alleged miniatures are to be found in so many British collections
as "Maccaroni Cosway," as he was called in his day. Maccaroni, you
remember, was a name given to "dandies" about the last quarter of the
eighteenth century.
Sticking a huge feather in his hat, disporting himself in a mulberry
coat with scarlet strawberries, displaying himself at sale-rooms and
other places of public resort--these and such-like doings were delights
to this diminutive, vain, and eccentric artist.
"Yankee Doodle went to town
Upon a little pony,
He stuck a feather in his hat
And called it Maccaroni."
In his "Lives of Eminent British Painters" Allan Cunningham closes a
long account of Cosway in these words, "His works are less widely
known than they deserve, and his fame is faded." In the light of
the present day, and the annals of the auction-room, that statement
is one which can by no means be admitted. It may, on the contrary,
be safely asserted of Richard Cosway that his fame, whatever it may
have been in the days of Allan Cunningham, so far from fading, has
been steadily increasing, until it has reached a pinnacle of the
highest reputation--that is, if the pecuniary test be applied. But
whilst this is true, it may also be conceded that of late a more just
appreciation of the relative merits of Cosway, as compared with some of
his contemporaries, has been made by the impartial and discriminating
critic; by which I mean it is not so much that Cosway has become less
famous, but that others, such as George Engleheart and John Smart, for
example, have received proper recognition, and all the finest works of
the period are no longer assigned, as a matter of course, to Cosway, as
it may be said was at one time the case.
The eccentricities of Cosway as a man, his diminutive appearance,
and extravagance of attire, made him a conspicuous object wherever
he went. His extravagance of living, his vanity and ostentation,
excited jealousy and ridicule; but, whilst fortune smiled on him, he
could boast of his friendship with the Prince of Wales, and lavishly
entertained the rank and fashion of his day. He was, according to the
gossip of J. T. Smith, in his "Life and Times of Nollekins," "one
of the dirtiest of boys." This amusing but sometimes ill-natured
writer says that Cosway was employed as a waiter to the students
at Shipley's well-known drawing school, and used to take in the tea
and coffee for them. Inasmuch as his father was Master of Blundell's
School, Tiverton, it seems improbable that the young Cosway would have
been placed in such a menial position at Shipley's. That he was a
student there we know, as he was also in the studio of Thomas Hudson,
a mediocre artist, best known as the master of Sir Joshua Reynolds,
and, like the President of the Royal Academy and Cosway himself, also a
Devonshire man.
[Illustration: G. ENGLEHEART.
PORTRAIT OF A LADY.
(_Col. W. H. Walker._)]
[Illustration: PORTRAIT OF A GENTLEMAN.
(_M. Viennot._)]
Cosway must have come to London when of very tender years; for in
1755, being then only thirteen years old, he won a premium of fifteen
guineas of the then newly constituted Society of Arts, for the best
drawing of any kind by boys and girls under fourteen, and this promise
of early success was followed by his being elected Associate of the
Royal Academy when only twenty-nine, and full member two years later.
The hard work that he went through in his early training, joined, no
doubt, to what must have been natural facility of execution, gave him
astonishing rapidity in his work, as to which Cunningham has observed:
"He often finished miniatures at three sittings of half an hour each,
and when he sat down to dinner would boast that he had despatched
during the day twelve or fourteen sitters."
If this boast be even approximately true, he must indeed have been a
prolific artist, and his annual production of miniatures be reckoned by
the thousand. That there must be a vast number extant we may safely
conclude when we remember the facility to which we have just referred,
and the fact that his earliest contributions to the Academy were made
when he was only twenty-six, and that he worked until half a century
later, for he was eighty when he died.
But if, then, the existence must be allowed of an enormous number of
miniatures by Cosway, to say nothing of those by his wife, of whom
I shall speak later, what shall I say of the countless forgeries of
this the most popular of all English miniature painters? What was
the case in his day I do not know, but I am sure that there must be
a never-ending host of copyists at work now, who devote themselves
particularly to imitating the works of Cosway and his contemporaries.
And here I cannot refrain from telling a little story _apropos_ of what
happens to these copies. It was told me by an artist who was present
at an auction in certain well-known sale-rooms with a friend. By and
by some so-called Cosways were put up and fetched very high prices,
whereat the acquaintance expressed great satisfaction to my artist
friend, and, in a burst of confidence said, "You know, I painted them
myself."
Well-known historical characters, such as the Pompadour, Madame Du
Barry, Marie Antoinette, the First Napoleon, the Empress Josephine,
Madame Vigée le Brun, and the rest, whose name is legion, these are the
favourite subjects of the copyist.
The late Dr. Propert, who owned a large collection himself, of by no
means uniform quality, speaks feelingly on this subject. He says: "I
am sorry to say that the French hold an unenviable pre-eminence for
the production of spurious enamels and miniatures. It is really of
some danger to attempt a collection of French specimens; many at once,
no doubt, display the cloven hoof clearly enough to warn off even a
novice, but I have seen some which would puzzle an expert. If any
of these enterprising gentry get hold of a really old miniature, it
matters not how time or exposure to light may have wrecked the once
beautiful tints, the merest ghost suffices them; they will restore and
paint it all over again with a subdued palette, and, like new wine
artificially aged by the arts of the chemist, it presents itself in a
guise which will take no denial."
This subject is one of very great importance to the collector, upon
whose credulity the forgers appear to be able to reckon to any extent,
and it is really remarkable the way in which people, who should know
better, will bring out from their cabinets works to which they do not
hesitate to attach some of the most eminent names to be found in the
annals of the art of miniature painting. If only they have picked them
up _themselves_, that appears to be one of the chief recommendations
and guarantees of authenticity. It is the delight in a bargain, or
what they are pleased to think is a bargain, that appears to have such
a fascination for generation after generation of collectors. That
this evil--for as such I regard it--is ever on the increase may be
concluded from the fact of the increasing number of bric-à-brac shops
in which one sees these forgeries displayed. I do not know what their
owners say about these so-called old miniatures, and I do not wish
necessarily to cast any stigma upon the vendors. I might go farther,
and say that very often it seems as if the purchasers did not want
to know the truth about these works. They like to think that their
own astuteness and sound judgment, their sharp eye and keen nose for
a bargain have enabled them to "pick up" (that is their favourite
word) these treasures, upon such favourable terms, and to enrich their
collection with gems which, unaccountable as it may seem, have quite
escaped the notice of the general public and of the common or ordinary
collector.
Talking of collections, it may be observed that Cosway himself was a
great collector. His house, No. 1, Stratford Place, was full of costly
works of art, of silks, china, and gems of bijouterie and vertu, in
which he trafficked and dealt, and his wife, Maria, fully shared the
painter's taste. I may here say something about this lady, who was in
many ways a remarkable woman.
She was the daughter of an Irishman named Hadfield, who was an
innkeeper at Leghorn. Maria was born in Florence, in 1759, and lived
to be nearly as old as her husband. After studying art in Rome, she
came to England, where she took up miniature painting as a profession.
Her first contributions to the Royal Academy were in 1781, in which
year Cosway married her, she being then twenty-two, of a blonde type
of beauty, with soft blue eyes. She practised art in various forms.
At Hardwicke, in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, there is
a really fine picture painted by her of the beautiful duchess as
Cynthia, full length, in oils, life size. Allan Cunningham observed of
this picture that when it was exhibited there was no little stir. The
likeness was excellent, and its poetic feeling not unworthy of the poet
(Spenser) whose work inspired it. At Longford Castle the Earl of Radnor
has a full length, also in oils, of a lady of the family.
[Illustration: W. WOOD.
PORTRAIT OF A GENTLEMAN.]
[Illustration: UNKNOWN.
MARIA, DUCHESS OF COVENTRY.
(_J. G. Fanshawe, Esq._)]
As to her miniatures, Cunningham says: "Almost the first time she was
seen in public she was pointed out as the lady who had painted some of
the most lovely miniatures in the Royal Academy," and he adds, "her
reputation was made at once, for nothing was talked about but the great
youth and the great talent of Mrs. Cosway. One half of the carriages
that stopped at her husband's door contained sitters ambitious of the
honours of her pencil." He says that the painter was too proud a man to
permit his wife to paint professionally. But inexorable though he was
in regard to painting, "he was more gentle in the matter of music, of
which Maria was passionately fond, and he had a handsome house and good
income and allowed her to indulge in those splendid nuisances called
evening parties."
With a character so full of vanity and weakness as Cosway's was in
some respects, it is not surprising to learn that, after twenty years
of married life, incompatibility of temperament, as the phrase goes,
developed between this ill-assorted pair, and at the beginning of the
last century Mrs. Cosway was separated from her husband. In 1804 she
retired to a religious house at Lyons, Cunningham says "owing to the
death of her daughter." She was in London as late as 1821-2 selling
her deceased husband's property, old miniatures and so forth, for
Cosway had died whilst taking the air in 1821. Her final visit to
England was in 1829, on a similar errand. She then retired to Italy,
and founded a college at Lodi, near Milan, which grew into a religious
house in connection with the order known as the Institute of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, and here she died, in 1838.
She was known as the Baroness in Italy, the Emperor Francis of Austria
having granted her a title. There is no doubt that Maria Cosway was
a versatile and amiable woman and an artist of considerable ability.
Although at one time separated from her husband, she nursed him in his
declining years.
As to his character, Andrew Robertson, the miniature painter, although
he terms him "the vainest creature in the world," says, "To me he
behaved in the most liberal way"; and we have the valuable testimony
of Ozias Humphrey, who was a rival miniature painter, that he was "the
kindliest of friends." Another contemporary, William Hazlitt, says he
was "bright and joyous." His pupil Andrew Plimer speaks of him as "my
beloved master"; and, finally, we have the testimony of his wife, that
he was "_toujours gai_."
Before leaving Cosway a few remarks may be offered upon his technique.
One of the first characteristics of his style is what has been termed
a certain hothouse lusciousness. Although the bulk of his work
consisted of portraits from life, whether it was that he did not
attempt to make likeness a strong feature, or whether he could not
help exaggerating the delicacy of his sitters' complexions, the size
of their eyes, and giving them an air of artificiality, or whether it
was the extreme rapidity of his method (he used, as we saw, to boast
of having painted several portraits in a day)--whether it be to one or
all of these reasons that we must attribute the style of Cosway, there
it is, and so marked is it that, generally speaking and in the case
of fine examples, at any rate, one cannot mistake it. The treatment
of the hair is marked by breadth and peculiar freedom of handling,
the backgrounds are commonly, but not always, an ultramarine blue
(especially his early ones). The foregoing remarks apply to Cosway's
miniatures upon ivory, but, as is well known, he by no means confined
himself to those. Some of his most pleasing work took the form of
full-length figures drawn in pencil with a very slight background, the
draperies lightly drawn, but the face carefully finished, of which the
George IV., given on p. 203, is a fine example. He also painted in oils.
[Illustration: SIR W. C. ROSS, R.A.
THE BARONESS BURDETT-COUTTS.]
THE PLIMERS.
Amongst the many surprising vicissitudes of the auction-room, the
enhancement in value of the works of two of Cosway's pupils may here be
mentioned. I refer to the prices that have been paid within the past
few years for works by the brothers Andrew and Nathaniel Plimer (or
Plymer, as the name is sometimes spelled). That the miniatures of these
men, of whom Andrew was much the better artist, are pleasing--indeed,
have something of the charm of Cosway--cannot be denied, but they are
less well-drawn than his, the eyes, particularly, being exaggerated
in size; the execution of the hair is certainly inferior to Cosway's,
being stiff and wiry. In spite of this inferiority--which, I think, is
apparent upon a careful comparison--miniatures which, a few years ago,
could be bought for a few pounds now fetch as many hundreds. Despite
some early struggles, I do not know that there is very much that need
be said about these painters, beyond this posthumous rise in the value
of their works. Redgrave, in his "Century of Painters," does not even
mention them. In his "Dictionary of Artists" less than twenty lines are
devoted to them.
The Plimers were born at Wellington, in Shropshire, where their father
was a clockmaker, Nathaniel in 1757, Andrew, the younger, six years
later. The elder brother exhibited at the Academy from 1787 to 1815,
and died in 1822. Andrew contributed from 1786 to 1810 and again in
1819.
He died at Brighton, in 1837, aged seventy-four. In the obituary of the
_Gentleman's Magazine_ he is described as being, many years ago, an
eminent miniature painter in Exeter.
A charming portrait of him by Geddes now hangs in the Scottish National
Gallery.
There is a well-known group of three young girls, daughters of Sir
John Rushout, sometimes called the Three Graces, on which much of
Andrew Plimer's fame may be said to rest. It was sold with a lot of
worthless odds-and-ends at a sale at Marlow Place, Great Marlow; the
bidding began at half a crown, and left off at £315. The miniature
was purchased, with others, from Mr. E. Joseph's collection for a very
large sum, and has now gone, I believe, to New York.
JOHN SMART.
The mention of the enhancement of price which has been of late years
witnessed in the case of eighteenth-century miniatures instinctively
recalls the name of John Smart, who was born at Norwich in the same
year as Cosway was born at Tiverton, namely, 1740. He must have been
precocious, for he gained the Society of Arts premium when only
fifteen. It was as a student at Shipley's, no doubt, that he made the
acquaintance of Richard Cosway, and they became friends, the latter
artist terming Smart, in letters, "little John," "faithful John," and
so forth.
Smart became a fashionable miniaturist of his day, and, like Humphrey,
went to India, where he remained five years. His son John followed his
example in 1808, but died in India the following year. The portraits
of Lord and Lady Clive given in this volume, belonging to the Earl of
Powis, are probably due to Smart's visit to the East. His work in India
may be identified by the letter "I" which is attached to his signature.
He was a large contributor to the Exhibition of the Incorporated
Society of Artists, of which he was made Vice-president.
I may remark, in passing, that an excellent, but little-known painter
and somewhat eccentric character, namely, George Chinnery, R.A., also
spent a great deal of time in the East Indies, where he practised his
art for nearly fifty years, dying at Macao. There is a portrait of him
in the National Portrait Gallery, painted by himself.
It would be difficult to over-praise the truth and beauty of Smart's
work, although Cosway termed him "slow, and a bit washy." The last
epithet sounds almost ludicrous to those who are familiar with
Smart's manner of painting, which is finished almost to excess,
and often resembles an enamel in appearance. Indeed, I possess a
fair-complexioned man's head by him which might at first sight be
taken for an enamel, so smooth is it in execution. But the absolute
truth of the flesh-tints, scrupulous accuracy of the drawing of the
features, and the harmonious beauty of the whole, make it a work of the
highest art in its way, placing the artist in the very front rank of
miniaturists. Moreover, these qualities distinguish all Smart's best
work, and stamp him, in my opinion, as a greater artist than Cosway.
OZIAS HUMPHREY.
By the "cognoscenti," doubtless, the merit of Ozias Humphrey is
recognised, but I think it may be safely said that by the general
public his ability is certainly not estimated at its true value. Merit
is, in fact, an inadequate term for the admirable draughtsmanship
and beautiful colour of this true artist. The refinement, the
self-restraint and sobriety of his work, the unobtrusive, careful,
thorough finish, are perhaps those qualities most likely to escape the
casual observer. For my own part I incline to place him in the front
rank of English miniature painters, and amongst the very finest of them
all. He may not have the luscious sweetness of Cosway at his best,
but he is more uniformly excellent. His technique is far superior to
the over-rated Plimer and is free from the mannerism and enamel-like
smoothness of Smart.
[Illustration: A. ROBERTSON.
COUNTESS OF LEITRIM.]
[Illustration: SIR W. C. ROSS, R. A.
THE ARTIST'S MOTHER.]
Humphrey worked in India for rather less than three years--from 1785
to 1788; but ill-health forced him to return to England. In the
British Museum is preserved a note-book containing memoranda by him
and a few sketches; amongst other interesting entries by his own hand
are particulars of portraits which he executed for Indian princes
and Anglo-Indians. These show the prices he obtained. Thus, for the
Governor-General he obtained 1,000 rupees; for Mrs. Sturt, 700; for
Mrs. Hewitt, 1,000; for Miss Blair and Mrs. Keighley, 532 each; 1,000
for a whole length of Mrs. Trevor. In 1786 he was owed 6,600 rupees by
native princes.
Ozias Humphrey was born at Honiton, in 1742. Probably his West Country
origin had something to do with Sir Joshua Reynolds's friendship for
him, and it was by the President's advice that he studied in the St.
Martin's Lane School. After two years in London he returned home, owing
to the death of his father. He then was placed under Samuel Collins,
the miniature painter, at Bath, and lodged with Lindley, the musician.
Here, as a child, the future Mrs. Sheridan, the lovely original of Sir
Joshua's Saint Cecilia,
"With looks commercing with the skies,
Her rapt soul sitting in her eyes,"
was wont to sing to Humphrey. Pecuniary difficulties drove Collins
from Bath, and he established himself in Dublin, whereupon the young
Humphrey, who was then but twenty-two, returned to London and settled
in King Street, Covent Garden, not far from his patron, Sir Joshua
Reynolds.
A purchase by George III. from an exhibition in Spring Gardens, two
years later, was probably the commencement of Humphrey's success, and
led to the King commissioning him to paint his Consort and members
of the Royal Family. At Windsor, by the way, are three notable and
beautiful miniatures by him of Queen Charlotte, all after Gainsborough,
two of them representing her as quite young and not a little
attractive. In one of them the likeness to an eminent living member of
the Royal Family is very marked.
Doubtless Humphrey had ambition as an artist, and, accompanied by
George Romney, he went to Italy in 1773, as all who could afford it did
in those days.
Cumberland, the dramatist, celebrated the event by some indifferent
verses; of the miniature painter he says:
"Crown'd with fresh roses, graceful Humphrey stands,
While beauty grows immortal from his hands."
Romney returned sooner than Humphrey; a coolness sprang up between
them, as to which Allan Cunningham makes Humphrey to blame, and rather
ill-naturedly remarks that he was "a gossip and an idler." The same
critic has observed that he, Humphrey, used to call and read the
newspaper to Sir Joshua Reynolds, when, in his declining days, the
great painter's eyesight failed--a misfortune destined to overtake the
miniaturist himself a few years later.
[Illustration: R. DUDMAN.
WILLIAM COBDEN.]
[Illustration: MILLICENT AMBER.
_His wife._]
After a four years' sojourn in Italy Humphrey returned to London and
essayed oil-painting, exhibiting whole-lengths in the Academy, but
without much success. Miniature painting was his forte, especially also
the copying of other men's work in small, and at Knole may be seen many
works of this nature.
GEORGE ENGLEHEART.
Some ten or twelve years later than the three eminent miniature
painters we have been discussing was born George Engleheart, whose
best work may often be placed almost on a level with theirs, but not
always. He frequently exaggerates the eyes in his ladies' portraits,
and his colour is often not agreeable, the flesh tints in his men's
pictures being especially sallow. Engleheart, who lived at Kew, was of
Silesian origin; he was a pupil of Sir Joshua Reynolds, and when only
thirty-eight was made miniature painter to King George III., with whom
he was a favourite. His fee book discloses that he must have painted
nearly 5,000 miniatures, as he painted assiduously between 1775 and
1813, in some years finishing more than 200 per annum. He contributed
to the Academy for nearly forty years.
For fidelity of likeness and sound workmanship I should incline to give
preference to the male portraits of Engleheart, of which the example
shown on p. 233 is a fair specimen.
Five thousand miniatures by one artist alone, of the fair women and
brave men of his day, and how many of them are to be seen in our
national collections?
At Hertford House, a solitary one, an unknown lady in a white
head-dress; in the National Portrait Gallery, not one; at Kensington,
three or four, and those not of superlative quality by any means, the
excessive size of the head compared with the figure being a marked
defect in two of them.
THREE MINIATURES OF THE COBDEN FAMILY.
Mrs. Cobden Unwin enables me to reproduce in this volume three
miniatures of the Cobden family. The father of Richard Cobden, the
statesman, was William Cobden, of Dunford, Heyshott, Midhurst, Sussex.
He was born at Dunford on September 30, 1775, and died at Droxford,
Bishop's Waltham, Hants, on June 15, 1833. The miniature of him here
reproduced is by W. Dudman. Dudman was a contributor to the Royal
Academy of 1797, and it is possible that this miniature was his sole
contribution, since it bears an inscription on the back in Latin to
the effect that it was "out of the Royal Academy." Now, inasmuch as he
exhibited but once, and that occasion was the same year as the date of
the inscription I have just quoted, it seems to demonstrate that this
was the identical miniature shown that year, although the name is not
given in the catalogue.
William Cobden married Millicent Amber, whose portrait in her
wedding dress is also here given. The painter of this is unknown, but
the picture is very probably the work of Dudman, the two miniatures
being much alike in colouring and treatment. Mrs. Cobden predeceased
her husband by some eight years, dying at West Meon in Hampshire in
1825, aged 49.
[Illustration: UNKNOWN.
MASTER COBDEN.
Son of Richard Cobden.]
The other member of the Cobden family whose portrait is given here
is Richard Brooks Cobden, the son of the statesman. He was born
at Manchester in 1841, the year his father was elected member for
Stockport, in the very midst of the Anti-Corn-Law League agitation.
He was sent to school on the Continent, and died at Weinheim, near
Heidelberg, on April 6, 1856, thus being cut off on the threshold
of life. The miniature here shown represents him when considerably
younger, and I am unable to give the artist's name.
XI
SOME EARLY
VICTORIAN
ARTISTS
CHAPTER XI
SOME EARLY VICTORIAN ARTISTS
Andrew Robertson, his pupil Sir William Ross, Hayter, William Newton,
and Robert Thorburn may be said to form a group of Victorian miniature
painters, the last survivors of "the old guard," and men who mark a
definite break in the practice of the art, for they painted down to the
arrival of the enemy, namely photography.
This was a very momentous event in the history of miniature painting,
and, at one time, seemed destined to put an end to the practice of
the art entirely, leading Sir William Ross to say, "It is all up
with miniature painting" and Thorburn to abandon the art altogether.
For years after the _carte de visite_ was introduced the number of
miniature painters grew smaller and smaller, as did their contributions
to the Academy.
Of the four above-named men, Robertson may first be dealt with.
Andrew Robertson was a self-taught man, born at Aberdeen, in 1777.
Besides being an artist, he was a first-rate violinist, and so ardent
a musician that he was director of concerts in his native town at
sixteen years of age. His energetic temperament led him to walk to
London to see the exhibition of the Royal Academy, in 1801. Arrived
in the metropolis, he was so fortunate as to attract the notice of
Benjamin West, President of the Academy, who induced the young Scottish
artist to remain in London, and sat to him for his portrait.
West's influence at Court at that time was great; it led to Royal
patronage being extended to Robertson, who was made miniature painter
to the Duke of Sussex. His reputation was now assured, and soon he
obtained many pupils, of whom Sir William Ross was one. In 1841,
after a career in London of forty years, he retired, when he was
presented with a piece of plate, as "father of the profession." He
died at Hampstead four years later. He was an actively charitable and
industrious man. Those who wish to trace his career in more detail may
do so in the pages of the "Letters and Papers of Andrew Robertson,"
published by his daughter, Miss Robertson, in 1895.
As to the works of this artist I do not count myself a great admirer
of them, finding his colour rather crude, almost disagreeable. There
is, however, a certain rugged force and honesty about his portraiture
which perhaps compensate for the lack of charm and refinement. Mr.
Jeffery Whitehead possesses (or did possess) a large collection of his
works, many of which were shown at one of Messrs. Dickinson's loan
exhibitions of miniatures some years ago. Miss Robertson, the writer
to whom I have just referred has observed that "it is not generally
known that at the close of the eighteenth century the multitude of
inferior miniatures, and the failing powers or retirement of the
eminent men [then] living threatened the extinction of this branch of
arts. The small oval miniature developed into the cabinet picture,
which culminated in the works of Hayter, Newton, and Thorburn and the
delicate and beautiful works of Ross, my father's pupil from the age of
fourteen and his dear friend through life."
[Illustration: JANET.
MARY STUART.
(_H.M. the King._)]
As this present work is neither a history of miniature painting nor a
dictionary of artists, I need not attempt to enumerate the numerous
inferior miniature painters to whom reference is made in the above
extract; but I may say a few words about some men who belong to this
period, and whose names and works are often met with by the collector.
Earliest amongst these was William Wood, a Suffolk man, born 1760. His
work is distinguished at any rate by harmony of colour and correct
drawing. He was President of the short-lived Society of Associated
Artists and exhibited at the Academy for twenty years (from 1788 to the
year of his death), contributing over a hundred portraits. I should
place Thomas Hargreaves, born at Liverpool, in 1775, in much the same
category as Wood. His father was a woollen draper, who articled his
son as an assistant to Sir Thomas Lawrence. Hargreaves's work bears
the impress of that master's style. He painted W. E. Gladstone and his
sister as children.
Then Henry Edridge, who was born in 1769, and lived to see George IV.
on the throne, should not be overlooked. His early works are on ivory,
but he is best known by his spirited and refined drawings on paper,
the figures in which are slightly touched in, whilst the heads are
carefully finished; good examples of them may be seen at the Victoria
and Albert Museum. He became an Associate of the Academy, and his
advancement in life is said to have been due to the influence of Sir
Joshua Reynolds, who allowed him to copy his paintings in miniature;
but the drawings by Edridge to which I have just made reference do not
show the influence of Sir Joshua. He died in 1821, from grief at the
loss of a favourite daughter, aged seventeen, and an only son.
Between the years 1786 and 1821 there were no less than 260 examples of
Edridge's work shown on the walls of the Academy.
John Downman was a contemporary of the foregoing and also a
fellow-associate of the Academy; but his portraits, though delicate and
minute, hardly come under the definition of miniatures. John Linnell,
the landscape artist, was a miniature painter at the outset of his
career, as was Sir Henry Raeburn.
Mrs. Mee, born Anne Foldsome, is a lady miniaturist who is fully
represented in the Royal Collection at Windsor, having been patronised
by George IV. when Prince of Wales. I do not like her work, but all
credit must be given to her for her exertions to support a widowed
mother and eight brothers and sisters.
[Illustration: S. COOPER.
THE DUKE OF MONMOUTH.
(_H.M. the King._)]
Alfred Edward Chalon (not to be confounded with H. B. Chalon the animal
painter, nor with John James Chalon, R.A.) besides being a witty and
popular man, was a thorough artist, as his spirited full-lengths,
dashed in with great freedom, attest, his treatment of draperies being
particularly skilful. He came of an old French family, and was born at
Geneva, in 1817. He was made water-colour painter to Queen Victoria,
and elected a full member of the Academy, to the exhibitions of which
he contributed no less than 400 works.
And now, by way of concluding my remarks on English miniature painters,
I turn to the group of men to which Miss Robertson refers, and the
particular style of work they introduced; for they were, she alleges,
the originators of the cabinet pictures in vogue at the beginning of
the nineteenth century and in the early Victorian days. Miss Robertson
does not make it clear to which Hayter she refers (for there were two,
father and son, to whom her remarks might perhaps apply). I conclude
she means Charles Hayter, who exhibited for nearly half a century; his
last contribution was in 1832. In spite of his writings on perspective,
and the alleged correctness of his likenesses, Hayter's work is feeble
and uninteresting.
Sir William Newton is an artist about whom opinions differ, the late
Dr. Propert, for example, hardly having a good word to say for him.
In his own day, however, Newton, who was the son of an engraver, and
descended from a brother of Sir Isaac, was a thoroughly successful
man. He was made miniature painter-in-ordinary to William IV., whom
he painted a dozen times or more. He was knighted on the accession of
Queen Victoria, in 1837, and was the first person who received that
distinction in the new reign. Sir William became a well-known figure
in London society, and took a leading position in the musical world.
For fifty years he contributed nearly the whole number of works allowed
to Academicians. At one time membership of the Academy was not open
to miniature painters; after a long struggle Sir William obtained a
withdrawal of the restriction, although he would not allow his own name
to be brought forward for the honour. He lived to be eighty-four, dying
in 1869.
In Robert Thorburn, A.R.A., we have an instance of a rapid rise. Born
at Dumfries, in 1818, he had painted the Queen, the Prince Consort, and
two of the Royal children by the time he was thirty years of age. His
successful career as a miniature painter was cut short by the advent of
photography, but not before he had painted many of the aristocracy.[4]
[Footnote 4: In my larger works on miniature painting I have given
lists of his sitters, compiled from information kindly afforded by Mrs.
Thorburn.]
The change was so great that he abandoned the practice of his earlier
art, and took to painting portraits in oils, but with less success.
He died at Tunbridge, in 1885. In spite of a certain monotony in his
flesh painting, I greatly admire his miniatures, which are marked by
refinement, whilst the composition is graceful and sometimes dignified.
His work was appreciated in Paris, where he was awarded a gold medal
in 1855.
[Illustration: QUEEN CHARLOTTE.
(_H.M. the King._)]
[Illustration: JAMES II.
(_H.M. the King._)]
Like Sir William Newton and Sir William Ross (to whom I shall refer
presently), Thorburn used large surfaces of ivory for his portraits,
or cabinet pictures as Miss Robertson terms them: this was managed by
taking the circumference of a trunk of ivory, making it flat by great
pressure, laying it down on a panel and adding strips on the top,
bottom, and sides. Thus pictures of considerable size with elaborate
backgrounds could be painted and correspondingly high prices obtained.
I now come to a distinguished and excellent man who rounds off a period
in the art we have under discussion.
Sir William Charles Ross was the last of the old school of miniature
painters. Of Scottish origin, he was born in London, in 1794. Both his
father and mother were portrait painters, the former being gardener to
the Duke of Marlborough.
Young William Ross made an early start in life, for, according to Miss
Robertson, he became a pupil of her father's when he (Ross) was only
fourteen. In 1809, when he was but fifteen, he contributed three works
to the Academy and had already won medals at the Society of Arts and in
the Academy Schools.
Queen Victoria sat to him in 1837, and he painted the whole of the
Royal Family of his day as well as the Kings and Queens of Belgium and
Portugal, &c. His miniatures are said to have exceeded two thousand
in number. After his death, in 1860, an exhibition of his works was
opened at the Society of Arts; the catalogue (which I have printed
elsewhere) is likely to be of much interest in the future, and shows
most clearly the commanding position Ross occupied in his profession.
He painted Miss Angela Burdett-Coutts (as she then was) in 1846; it is
here shown, and must be reckoned one of his finest works. The Baroness
owned several other important examples of Sir William. At Windsor there
are a great many, and in the exhibition to which I have just referred
Queen Victoria is given as the owner of over forty pieces.
In judging of the artistic value of Ross we must remember that he had
to contend with the difficulties imposed by a thoroughly tasteless
style of costume, according to present standards. The period covered by
his work coincides with that of the very lowest depth of Philistinism
in art, costume, and architecture which our annals disclose.
His colour was too florid to suit some tastes, his palette being set
somewhat _à la_ Rubens, but his flesh-tints are fresh and delightful,
and when time has mellowed them will probably be reckoned of great
beauty. His composition, draperies, background, and accessories were
treated with much skill. He had a brother, Hugh, who was also a
miniature painter of ability.
[Illustration: R. COSWAY, R.A.
GEORGINA, DUCHESS OF DEVONSHIRE.
(_H.M. the King._)]
XII
ROYAL
AND
PRIVATE
COLLECTIONS
CHAPTER XII
ROYAL AND PRIVATE COLLECTIONS
As in works by the old masters, so also this country is extremely rich
in old miniatures. I am speaking now of private collections. Of course,
by the very nature of the case, the majority of these are comparatively
inaccessible, not that their owners are illiberal in furnishing a
sight of their treasures to those who are interested, and can furnish
reasonable credentials for admission to a sight of them, but these
miniatures are scattered all over the land, and to see them demands
time, trouble, and expense. In the restricted space at my command in
this book it is futile to attempt to describe with fulness all the
riches of those private collections which I have been privileged to
study.
There are, however, a few collections of such paramount importance in
connection with our subject that they cannot be passed by, and every
one claiming to feel an intelligent interest in the subject of old
miniatures must wish to know something, at any rate, of the nature and
the extent of these private collections to which I have just referred.
THE ROYAL COLLECTION
Let us take first the Royal Collection at Windsor Castle, which
comprises some thousand examples, many remarkable for their intrinsic
beauty as well as their historic interest. Perhaps I ought to have put
the latter first, as being the principal source of interest belonging
to them. But that would be to look at them too much with the eye of the
historical student. Were they all portraits of comparative nobodies, or
even unknown persons, they would yet be a most delightful, varied, and
fascinating collection. As Sir Richard Holmes, the ex-royal-librarian,
who has written about them from time to time, has pointed out, the
collection has one peculiar interest, namely that "in nearly every case
these miniatures remain in the custody of the descendants of those for
whom they were originally painted, and thus present an almost unbroken
series of authentic portraits of the Royal Family from the time of
Henry VIII. to the present day."
The fact that this unique collection goes back, as the reader has just
been reminded, to Tudor days, leads us to expect that we may find some
work by Holbein, perhaps the greatest name in all the annals of the
art. Nor shall we be disappointed. Six examples there are by the great
Hans, among them Katherine Howard, and the two sons of Charles Brandon,
Duke of Suffolk, portraits possessing a pathetic interest, seeing that
the originals both died on the same day from the sweating sickness.
That was in 1551. Mr. Ralph Wornum's description of them may be worth
giving.
[Illustration:
UNKNOWN.
HENRY, CARDINAL OF YORK.
PRINCE CHARLES EDWARD.
(_H.R.H. the Duchess of Albany._)]
[Illustration: PETITOT.
MME. DE MONTESPAN.]
[Illustration: FROM AN ENAMEL BY H. BONE.
MARY STUART.
(_Burdett-Coutts Collection._)]
"Henry Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, in a black cap with white feather,
and a black coat with green sleeves, blond hair cropped all round;
he is leaning his left arm on a table, on which is written, '_Etatis
svæ 5, 6 sepdem, Anno 1535_.' Blue ground painted on the back of the
ace or three of clubs. The other is his brother Charles Brandon,
Duke of Suffolk, in a grey and red coat with black cuffs; his shirt
collar is embroidered with black thread round the outer edge. Blue
ground. On a tablet is inscribed '_Ann 1541, etatis svæ 10 Marci_.'
This is painted on the back of a king. Both are of the same size, one
and eleven-twelfths of an inch in diameter. They are said to have
been given to Charles I. by Sir Henry Vane, and both are entered as
Holbein's work in Van der Doort's catalogue. They are freely, firmly,
and yet elaborately executed.
"There are two of Henry VIII., one with a beard, in a black cap and
black ribbonds about his neck, in an ash-coloured tissue suit in a fur
cloak, his name and age in golden letters written on it. Being also one
of the number which were given to the King by Lord Suffolk."
This description is a quotation from the catalogue made by Van der
Doort, who was custodian of the pictures to Charles I., and that
monarch is meant by the reference to "the King." The same authority
describes another and lesser picture of Henry VIII.: "Without a beard,
also in a black cap and a little golden chain about his neck, in an
ash-coloured wrought doublet in a furred cloak with crimson sleeves."
Yet another Holbein is the portrait of Lady Audley, daughter of the
Treasurer of the Chamber to Henry, whose portrait in red chalk is
amongst the drawings by Holbein preserved at Windsor. These miniatures
are all circular, and measure from one and three-quarter inches to two
and a quarter inches in diameter.
Holbein's pupil, Nicholas Hilliard, is well represented at Windsor; the
valuable catalogue of Charles I.'s collection which I have quoted above
contains references to fourteen by him, including, says Sir Richard
Holmes, "those of Queen Elizabeth. But these last, unfortunately, are
no longer to be found." It is interesting to compare the renderings of
Henry VIII. which Holbein and Hilliard respectively present. Amongst
the most noteworthy of the Hilliards now at Windsor are four which were
probably painted by Royal command, namely Henry VII., Henry VIII.,
Edward VI., and Jane Seymour. These were originally attached to a
golden jewel, enamelled on one side with a representation of the Battle
of Bosworth Field and the roses of York and Lancaster on the other.
The miniature of Henry VII. must clearly have been painted either from
imagination or from some earlier picture, since it is dated 1509,
whereas Hilliard was not born till 1547. The other portraits, too,
represent the originals when it would have been impossible for Hilliard
to have painted them.
Among the miniatures of King Charles I.'s progenitors which Van der
Doort describes is one which hung with seven others in his own chamber,
and it is one of surpassing interest. He thus describes it: "No 23.
Item. Done upon the right light, the second picture of Queen Mary of
Scotland upon a blew-grounded square card, dressed in her hair, in a
carnation habit laced with small gold lace and a string of pearls about
her neck, in a little plain falling band, she putting upon her second
finger her wedding ring. Supposed to be done by the said Jennet. Length
three inches, breadth two inches." The claim to authenticity which
this portrait thus possesses is obviously very high, and Sir Richard
Holmes asserts "there is no portrait of the unhappy queen which has
so good a pedigree as this." We will not stop to discuss the complex
and difficult question of the true portraiture of Mary Queen of Scots.
Having recently published an exhaustive folio devoted to this topic, a
work containing more portraits of Mary, good, bad and doubtful, than
any with which I am acquainted, I may refer the reader to its pages for
the further elucidation of this fascinating problem. I may, however,
mention that the "said Jennet," by whom this portrait is "supposed to
be done," was of course the well-known Janet, otherwise called François
Clouet, Court painter in France at the time of Queen Mary's betrothal
to the Dauphin, whose portrait, by the same artist and from the Royal
Collection, I am able to show.
Clouet was one of a family of limners whose work was the best of the
day, and his drawings should be seen and studied by all who wish to
realise how admirable that work was in expression and character.
It is to be seen to the best advantage in the Print Department of
the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, and also in the large series now
preserved in the Palace of Chantilly, the ancestral home of the Condés.
By Hilliard I do not recall anything else very remarkable at Windsor,
unless a small circular picture of a girl wearing the roses of York and
Lancaster in her hair, which came from the Sackville Bale Collection
and is said to represent Lady Jane Grey, is his work. But in the works
of the Olivers, both father and son, the Royal Collection is rich.
Among portraits by Isaac Oliver there is the extremely interesting and
elaborate miniature, before referred to, representing Sir Philip Sidney
seated under a tree, presumably at his birthplace, Penshurst, with a
background of the formal Italian garden then so much in vogue (see p.
295). As this famous scholar, statesman, and soldier died in 1586,
the work must be a comparatively early example of Isaac Oliver, who
would be under thirty years of age at that time. A piece probably much
later is one of no less importance, namely a portrait of Prince Henry
Frederick, eldest son of James I., that "sweet royal bud" and "hope of
the Puritans" who died in 1612. An entry in the catalogue of Van der
Doort is as follows: "Imprimis. Done upon the right light. The biggest
limned picture that was made of Prince Henry, being limned in a set
laced ruff and gilded armour and a landskip, wherein are some soldiers
and tents, in a square frame with a shutting glass over it. Done by
Isaac Oliver. Length five and a quarter inches, breadth four inches."
[Illustration: PETER OLIVER, AFTER SIR A. VAN DYCK.
SIR KENELM DIGBY, WIFE, AND SONS.
(_Burdett-Coutts Collection._)]
Worthy to be ranked with these is another large miniature of Charles
II., which is even more highly finished than the two masterpieces,
viz., Monck and Monmouth, which I described in Chapter VII.--that is
to say, it is more finished throughout, because painting--in the head
only was a characteristic of Samuel Cooper. Probably he found the
painting of the drapery, background, and details somewhat irksome, and
having got the head and the character of the portrait, was often wont
to leave the completion of the picture until a more convenient season.
Be the reason what it may, there is no doubt that several of the
finest things that he ever painted are left in the unfinished state of
which Walpole has complained in his "Anecdotes of Painting." There is,
however, another miniature in the Royal Collection by this great artist
which may be appropriately mentioned here, and that is a portrait of
the man who sent the unfortunate "Mr. Crofts" to the scaffold. The
cold, implacable nature of James II. is admirably and most forcefully
suggested in this superb miniature. It represents him in armour when
he was probably Duke of York, and may have been painted after his
return from fighting the Dutch off the Texel. But the riches of this
collection, numbering as it does not less than a thousand examples, are
such that we must pass on.
For several decades following the death of Cooper there was
comparatively little native-born miniature art of first-rate importance
produced in this country, but about the middle of the eighteenth
century a "bright particular star" appeared on the horizon in the
person of Richard Cosway, and in the works of this eccentric but highly
talented miniature painter the Royal Collection is rich. The portrait
of the celebrated Duchess of Devonshire, which will be recognised as
an extremely characteristic example of the master, is one of the most
beautiful things in its way in the Royal Library, and is here given.
As I have devoted a chapter to the works of Cosway, I need not dwell
further upon the examples by him at Windsor.
There is a good deal of work by another artist, a contemporary of
Cosway, namely, Ozias Humphrey, to be seen here. Humphrey's style of
painting is far less showy than Cosway's, but it has a completeness,
a perfection of finish, repose, and beautiful colour, qualities which
combine to give his art great and, to my mind, permanent charm. A good
illustration of this may, I think, be found in his rendering of the
somewhat homely charms of Queen Charlotte, here given.
In so large a collection, brought together, I believe, through the
initiative of the late Prince Consort, and gathered into a whole from
all the royal palaces, there are, of course, works by artists too
numerous to mention here. But reference should be made to the large
number of examples of Sir William Ross. The Crown possesses at least
fifty works by him, many of large size, as was the fashion of his day.
In the year 1860, Queen Victoria owned over forty examples, which
comprised the English Royal Family and Queen Adelaide, besides the
Queen of the Belgians, the King and Queen of Portugal, Louis Philippe,
and other foreign royalties, for Ross was the most fashionable portrait
painter of his day.
PRIVATE COLLECTIONS
Rivalling, in general interest, the Royal Collection at Windsor is
that formed by the Duke of Buccleuch, now preserved at Montagu House,
in Whitehall. Those who have been privileged to visit this collection,
or who may remember it when it was shown in the rooms of the Royal
Academy at the Winter Exhibition in 1879, must admit its extraordinary
value, interest, and importance, alike from the artistic and from the
historical point of view. It presents, in fact, a microcosm of English
history, from the middle of Henry VIII.'s reign down to the closing
years of the period of the Restoration. We may see the _vera effigies_
of most of the leading characters of the times which are synchronous
with the work of Holbein down to the death of Samuel Cooper, in 1672.
The present writer well remembers of this exhibition that it left three
very distinct impressions on his mind, the force of which has been but
deepened by further acquaintance with the collection and by the process
of time. From it he first gained some idea of the richness of this
country in historical art of this nature. Secondly, he realised the
high quality, and indeed supreme artistic value, of much of the work
it contained; and, thirdly, the vivid illustration it furnished of the
history of the times contemporary with the artists represented.
These considerations lead him to regard old miniatures as valuable
adjuncts to historical research, and as worthy of careful and serious
study.
In the catalogue of the exhibition which I have mentioned we find
amongst the contributions of the Duke of Buccleuch some hundred and
fifty pieces by several of the most distinguished miniature painters
this country has produced--for example, some half-dozen Holbeins, a
score of Hilliards, as many Isaac Olivers, and more Coopers; not to
speak of rare men like Bettes, Dixon, and John Hoskins, junr.
Setting aside the Holbeins, which, however, call for special notice
on account of the rarity of the master as a miniature painter, the
works of Samuel Cooper claim pre-eminence; and one of them, namely,
the portrait of Oliver Cromwell, to which I have referred before, is
regarded by some good judges as perhaps the very finest thing that the
great limner has left us of his work. I am indebted to the Duke of
Buccleuch for the information that it was purchased through the agency
of Messrs. Colnaghi, from a descendant of the Protector, namely, a
Mr. Henry Cromwell Frankland, of Chichester, who inherited it through
a daughter of Lady Elizabeth Claypole. A writer in the _Athenæum_ of
September 10, 1898, states that this miniature is one of two of Oliver
Cromwell, which, being painted at Hampton Court, "were snatched from
the artist by the Protector, indignant because he found Cooper making
a copy of the original his Highness had sat for. Lady Falconbridge
[_sic_] inherited one or both of her father's captures, which, in the
course of a divided inheritance, parted company for about a century
and a half, only to be reunited at Montagu House."
[Illustration: ISAAC OLIVER.
SIR PHILIP SIDNEY. (_H.M. the King._)]
There is a very beautiful miniature of this Elizabeth Claypole herself
(she was, it will be remembered, the second and favourite daughter of
Cromwell) in the Buccleuch Collection; and in the same connection may
be mentioned the portrait of John Milton, which I have dealt with in
the chapter upon Cooper.
The beauty and importance of the Coopers should not blind us to the
interest of some of the Hilliards--for instance, the portrait of Alicia
Brandon, the wife of Nicholas Hilliard, and a portrait of Drake, dated
1581, painted probably just after his return from circumnavigating the
world. The great seaman's hair is dark brown, his moustache and beard a
light auburn; he looks manly vigour personified.
I have spoken of Dixon as being a rare painter; there are, however,
at least seven or eight by him in the collection I am now describing.
He is not mentioned by Redgrave, it may be noted in passing; but he
must have stood high in Court favour in his day, seeing that Charles
II., Madame Hughes, Mary Davis, the Duchess of Portsmouth, the Duke of
Monmouth, and Prince Rupert were among his sitters, and their portraits
are to be found in this collection.
I pass on to another private collection also remarkable for the number
and the superb quality of its examples of Samuel Cooper. It is that
of the Duke of Portland. The Welbeck Collection is largely a family
one, and so far as I know was never made as a collection pure and
simple. But it contains, nevertheless, amongst the portraits that I
shall proceed to mention, some of the very finest examples of Cooper
with which I am acquainted. Four of these struck me as especially
noteworthy, namely, Richard, Earl of Arran, John, Earl of Clare, Sir
Freschevile Holles, and Colonel Sidney, afterwards Lord Romney. The
latest of these works is dated 1668, four years before the painter's
death. Cooper attained no greater age than sixty-three, and this may
account for the absence of any discoverable decadence, even in his
latest works.
Another marked feature in this collection, which is a large one, is the
predominance of Laurence Cross and Bernard Lens; but Cosway and his
school are scarcely, if at all, represented.
Another ducal collection, namely that at Belvoir, is important in
respect of the historical miniatures it contains, and not the least
valuable of these are miniatures of Sir Walter Raleigh and his son--he
who was killed in the attack on the Spanish settlement on the Cayenne
River, the story of which, and the beautiful enamel case which
contained them, with its initials of Walter and Elizabeth Raleigh, is
to be found in my book "Miniature Painters, British and Foreign," which
also contains particulars of many private collections, described at
considerable length and illustrated.
The Burdett-Coutts Collection is one of exceptional interest, inasmuch
as it contains some of Horace Walpole's most treasured pieces. It is
especially rich in the work of Peter Oliver, and hardly less so in
that of Petitot _fils_. By the kindness of the late Baroness, this
important collection was shown in the galleries of Messrs. Dickinson,
in New Bond Street, when the group of the Digby family, after Van Dyck,
and the separate miniatures of Sir Kenelm and his handsome wife, all
the work of the younger Oliver, were especially admired; these are all
shown in this volume. The Petitots, as I have said, are remarkable,
and the two examples here given were highly valued by the _dilettante_
owner of Strawberry Hill. Of the Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans, as
beautiful as she was ill-fated, he says it is a "very very large and
capital one, exquisitely laboured."
On the back of the James II., which represents him as Duke of York,
Walpole has written with his own hand "a present from the Duke to
his mistress Mrs. Godfrey"; and in his "Anecdotes" he says of this
enamel, "freely painted, though highly finished, and I suppose done in
France." We find ourselves sometimes at variance with Horace Walpole's
judgment, as when, for example, he extols Lady Anne Damer to the skies,
and refuses the rank of a painter to William Hogarth! But as to his
estimate of these two magnificent specimens of Petitot's art there can
be but one opinion, and it is one which coincides with that of their
former owner. Amongst the numerous Petitots in the Jones Collection at
the Victoria and Albert Museum, to which I shall refer again, I can
recall nothing to surpass, if indeed there be anything to equal them;
and it is remarkable what astounding advance has been made in the value
of these works of art, some of which fetch, it is literally true to
say, as many hundreds as they did single pounds only sixty-five years
ago.
Those of my readers who are wont to observe the prices realised at
auction nowadays by fine old miniatures may be interested to compare
them with those obtained at the famous Strawberry Hill sale. In my
"Miniature Painters, British and Foreign," I have printed the catalogue
of Horace Walpole's miniatures, and given the prices they realised
and the names of their purchasers. The curious in such matters will
find many interesting notes and illustrations in the pages of this
catalogue; _e.g._, the information given as to the provenance of the
two Petitots just described is gleaned from George Robbin's catalogue,
and I may add, from the same source, that the James II. fetched 75
guineas. It had been bought at the sale of the property of Mrs. Dunch
(who was the daughter of Mrs. Godfrey); it fetched less than the
Henrietta, which realised 125 guineas. We learn that Walpole purchased
it of C. F. Zincke, the distinguished enamel painter, who had it in his
possession for a long while, and "kept it as a study."
XIII
PUBLIC
COLLECTIONS
CHAPTER XIII
PUBLIC COLLECTIONS
The private collections of the United Kingdom, scattered as they
are all over the country, are by the nature of things not readily
accessible to the general reader. But with the public galleries the
case is different; and in London there exist, within half-an-hour's
walk of each other, two very considerable and instructive collections
which may be seen, studied, and compared at leisure. I refer, of
course, to those of Hertford House and the Victoria and Albert Museum
at South Kensington.
And here, in passing, I should like to emphasise the great practical
value of the comparisons which such visits enable us to make. To see,
side by side, miniatures of various periods and by various masters is
more informing than any amount of printed description.
The three hundred miniatures, or thereabouts, which the Wallace
Collection contains, are extremely valuable, not only intrinsically,
but because they present some reliable portraiture of great interest,
and, especially, because they are the only examples of many eminent
miniature painters which are to be found in any public galleries
in this country. As with oil paintings, so with miniatures; this
collection fills _lacunæ_. The National Gallery is remarkably--one
might say unaccountably--deficient in the French School, especially
of the eighteenth century (the nineteenth, as we all know, is hardly
represented at all), whilst the magnificent collection got together
by the third and fourth Marquis of Hertford and Sir Richard Wallace,
and now shown at Hertford House, is rich in these masters--so rich as
almost to provoke the envy of our neighbours across the Channel.
It may be well to inform such of my readers as are not familiar with
Hertford House that the miniatures are all to be found in three double
cases in Gallery No. XI. The light, admitted by a side window, is
not over good; this window faces north, and the best time to see the
miniatures is in the morning.
The arrangement, roughly speaking, is as follows:--
In case B are placed miniatures of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and
eighteenth centuries.
In case C, miniatures chiefly of the Napoleonic period and the
Restoration.
In case D, miniatures of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and
a large number of small copies after François Boucher, with similar
work by Charlier and others of the French school of the middle of the
eighteenth century.
Thus, in the Wallace Collection we can study at our leisure a valuable
series of works by several of the best French miniature painters,
some of whom are not to be found represented in any other public
gallery that I am aware of, even in Paris. There is, besides, a
not inconsiderable number of works by good English artists, which
afford instructive means of comparison, besides being interesting in
themselves. Viewing, then, the collection from the various standpoints
which I have enumerated, let us see what it reveals. We may here
dispense with any consideration of the pecuniary value; that is a
commercial view of the subject, one difficult to determine, and foreign
to the object of this book. Suffice it to say that the monetary value
of many of them is very great. Take the Isabeys and Halls, for example;
a miniature by the latter, shown at the Exhibition of Eighteenth
Century Art in Paris in 1906, at the Bibliothèque Nationale, fetched at
the Mülbacher Sale no less than 60,000 francs, or £2,400.
[Illustration: JANET.
THE DAUPHIN.
(_H.M. the King._)]
[Illustration: CHATILLON.
NAPOLEON I.
(_Duke of Wellington._)]
The collection at Hertford House is especially rich in portraits
belonging to the Napoleonic period. Many of the principal personages of
the First Empire may be found in case C. Thus we have Madame Letizia
Ramolino, the mother of Napoleon I.--Madame Mère, as she was called;
two or three portraits of Joséphine, notably one by Isabey in a Court
dress of white and gold; four of Marie Louise, Archduchess of Austria
and second wife of the Emperor. There is also one of her father, which
bears on the back this curious inscription, "Madame, disait l'Empereur
Napoléon à l'Impératrice Marie Louise, votre père n'est qu'une
ganache," a term which may be very closely rendered by our English word
"booby."