Here - Philip Mould

Masterpiece London - 2014
List of Works
Cat.1.
FOLLOWER OF HANS HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER (1497/8–1543).
Portrait of King Henry VIII (1491–1547) c.1550
Cat.2.
WORKSHOP OF GUILLIM SCROTS (fl.1537-1553)
Portrait of King Edward VI (1537-1553) c.1551
Cat.3.
WORKSHOP OF GUILLIM SCROTS (fl.1537-1553)
Portrait of King Edward VI (1537-1553)
Cat.4.
WORKSHOP OF MARCUS GHEERAERTS II
Portrait of William Cecil, Lord Burghley (1520/1-1598) c.1592
Cat.5.
WORKSHOP OF ROBERT PEAKE THE ELDER (c.1551–1619)
Portrait of Prince Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (1594-1612) c.1604
Cat.6.
TIZIANO VECELLIO, CALLED TITIAN (1485/9-1576)
Portrait of a Venetian Admiral, possibly Francesco Duodo (1518-1592)
Cat.7.
SIR PETER LELY (1618 -1680)
Portrait of a Lady as a Saint
Cat.8.
SIR PETER LELY (1618-1680)
Portrait of Mary Farrington (née Smith) (d.1717)
Cat.9.
SIR PETER LELY (1618-1680)
Portrait of Anne Killigrew (1660-1685)
Cat.10.
GEORGE ROMNEY (1734-1802)
Study of Emma Hamilton, ‘Absence’ (1761 - 1815)
Cat.11.
ENGLISH SCHOOL, EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Newfoundland and Spaniel in a Coastal Landscape
Cat.12.
CHARLES LOUIS CORBET (1758-1808)
Portrait bust of General Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
c.1798
Cat.13.
FRANZ XAVIER WINTERHALTER (1805 – 1873)
Portrait of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor Napoleon III (1808-1873) and his wife
the Empress Eugenie (1826-1920)
Cat.14.
JOHN FRANCIS (1780-1861)
Portrait bust of John Russell, 1ST Earl Russell (1792-1878), 1848.
Cat.15.
PAUL DELAROCHE (1797–1856)
Portrait of the Artist’s Son, Joseph-Carle-Paul-Horace Delaroche, 1851
Cat.16.
AUGUSTUS JOHN, RA, OM (1878-1961)
Portrait of Dorelia McNeill, c.1903
Cat.17.
WILFRED GABRIEL DE GLEHN (1870-1951)
Portrait of Jane Austen in Beige, Autumn
Cat.18.
SIR GERALD KELLY KCVO PRA (1879-1972)
Portrait of Jane, the artist’s wife
Cat.19.
DUNCAN GRANT (1885-1978)
Leda and Zeus, 1933
Cat.1
FOLLOWER OF HANS HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER (1497/8–1543).
Portrait of King Henry VIII (1491–1547), mid-Sixteenth Century
Oil on Panel
21 x 17 ½ in. 53.3 cm x 44.5 cm
Provenance
Collection of Sir Francis Winnington, 6th Bt., Stanford Court, Worcestershire.
This painting is a mid-sixteenth century replica of Hans Holbein’s celebrated portrait of Henry
VIII. It derives from Holbein’s 1537 Whitehall mural, in which Henry VIII was grouped
together with his father Henry VII, his mother Elizabeth of York, and his third wife, Jane
Seymour. The mural was destroyed by fire in the seventeenth century, but the image of Henry it
presented had quickly become the standard image of the King by the late 1530s. A number of
high quality replicas, some of which were almost certainly painted in Holbein’s studio, are known
from the late 1530s onwards. In fact, so prevalent did Holbein’s face-on portrait of Henry
become that a number of earlier likenesses of Henry, in which he was presented in the more
conventional three-quarter profile, were later painted over with Holbein’s design.
Holbein’s use of a face-on composition for Henry’s portrait marked an important break with
convention. His first portrayal of the King in oil showed Henry looking to the side, as seen in the
Thyssen portrait [Thyssen Collection, Madrid] of the mid-1530s, a picture which demonstrates
the challenges Holbein faced when painting the king, for Henry by then had become a
formidably unattractive man. He had always been well built — it was said in the 1520s that
‘when he moves the ground shakes beneath him’ — but in the latter half of his reign his girth
grew greatly. Holbein’s full-length cartoon for the Whitehall mural [National Portrait Gallery,
London] shows Henry looking to the side, as in the Thyssen picture; but at such a large scale we
se just how unflattering the pose is, not least in showing Henry’s hooked nose and large double
chin. Holbein somehow had to transform Henry’s irascible bulk into an identity fit for royal
stately power.
His answer was to use the frontal pose repeated in the present picture. The format was
unconventional in sixteenth century portraiture, since it was considered to be impolite and
‘graceless’. But Holbein, as so often, clearly liked breaking convention. The frontal pose was
used regularly throughout his career. It appears in a number of drawings, and in the portraits of
Christina of Denmark Anne of Cleves, and, most notably, the portrait of Charles de Solier
[Dresden Gemaldegalerie], in which the pose is almost identical to that used in the final version
of the Whitehall mural. Solier’s portrait was painted during his spell as French ambassador to
London in 1534. It is possible that Henry VIII saw Solier’s portrait and approved. Thus
Holbein’s portrayal of Henry evolved as Henry grew ever larger, and all subsequent portraits of
the King show him in this manner. Holbein’s ingenious trick was to accentuate Henry’s bulk,
rather than reduce it. By placing his hands on his hips to make the stance more confrontational,
and by incorporating the head and neck square-on, Holbein created a human fortress of imperial
strength.
Elements from this successful monarchical power-pose transcended to the following generation
of court painters; we notice, for example, the similar wide positioning of the legs in Guillem
Scrots’ (fl.1537-1553) series of full-lengths of Henry’s son and heir Edward VI (1537-1553) – see
next catalogue entry.
On closer inspection Henry’s costume, which is richly embroidered with gold silk and slashed to
reveal white beneath, features quite prominently an English oak leaf motif [Fig.1] – a symbol of
royalty, strength and permanence. Following the Church of England’s break from Rome,
symbolism such as this which could be widely disseminated through portraiture played an
increasingly important role.
The present version was painted by an unknown, near contemporary follower of Holbein, and is
in unusually good condition; the blue background, made with smalt, is largely unfaded, and
retains much of its original vibrancy, while the flesh tones and detailing on the face are all well
preserved. The initial design of the face has been taken from a template, or ‘mask’, the source of
which would ultimately have been taken from Holbein’s portrait. Infra-red reflectography has
revealed fine under-drawing [see Fig.2] and ‘pouncing’ marks in the face, where the paper
template would have been placed on top of the panel and effectively traced by means of small
holes through which a powder, most likely charcoal or graphite, would have been applied.
Holbein himself used the same technique when making the Whitehall mural – close inspection of
the surviving drawing for the mural [National Portrait Gallery, London] reveals a series of similar
holes all along the outlines of the figures. Dendrochronological analysis of the oak panels on
which the portrait is painted has shown that the earliest felling date for the tree used is 1546.
Fig.1. The costume is richly embroidered
with an English oak leaf motif –
traditionally a symbol of royalty, strength
and longevity. The level of detailing, seen
especially within the beard, is remarkably
high with a combination of finely painted
light and dark hairs heightening the sense
of volume.
Fig.2. Elements of under-drawing from the initial stages of construction
become visible using infrared reflectography. The artist, who may have
been working from a tracing taken from Holbein’s now lost Whitehall
mural, has drawn in a few basic contours of the face, including the lowerlip and curves of the nose, before applying the flesh tones.
Cat.2
WORKSHOP OF GUILLIM SCROTS (fl.1537-1553)
Portrait of King Edward VI (1537-1553) c.1551
Oil on Panel
62½ x 35¼ in. (158.8 x 89.5 cm.)
Provenance
Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough (d. 1744), Marlborough House, London, where recorded in
1736-41 by George Vertue;
John Winston Spencer-Churchill, 7th Duke of Marlborough (1822-1883), at Blenheim Palace,
Woodstock, Oxfordshire;
George Spencer-Churchill, 8th Duke of Marlborough (1844-1892), Blenheim Palace; Christie's,
sale at Blenheim, 31st July 1886, lot 243, as 'Holbein';
bt. 60 gns. by Lesser;
Probably Vernon James Watney, Esq. (d. 1928), Cornbury Park, Charlbury, Oxfordshire, and by
descent to his son;
Oliver Vernon Watney, Esq. (d. 1966), at Cornbury Park;
Christie's, London, 7th July 1967, lot 67, as 'Guillem Stretes';
Mr. and Mrs. Donald Davies, Charleville, Enniskerry, Co. Wicklow;
Christie's, on the premises, 23rd January 1978, lot 131, as 'W. Scrots';
By descent;
Selected Literature
G. Vertue, 'Notebooks', IV, Walpole Society, 1936, p. 113.
G, Scharf, Catalogue of the Pictures in Blenheim Palace, 1861, Part II, p. 139, as 'Holbein'.
Catalogue of Exhibition illustrative of Early English Portraiture, Burlington Fine Arts Club,
1909, p. 59.
V.J. Watney, A Catalogue of Pictures and Miniatures at Cornbury and 11 Berkeley Square,
Oxford, 1915, no. 39.
C. MacLeod, Guillim Scrots in England, unpublished MA dissertation, Courtauld Institute, 1990,
p. 17.
This portrait of Edward VI is the last likeness painted during his reign. It was painted in the
workshop of Guillim Scrots, Holbein’s successor as the Tudor court’s artist. Whilst there is little
evidence of Scrots’ practices, and few works by him are certainly known, the assumption is that
the present picture is largely by him. Only three examples of this portrait type are known, the
others being in the Louvre, Paris, and the Los Angeles Museum of Art. Due to substantial layers
of later over-paint, dirt and old varnish, the present portrait was not thought to be connected to
Scrots, and was sold simply as ‘English School’. However, recent conservation by this gallery has
revealed a work of high quality in good condition, and one of few full-length Tudor royal
portraits still left in private hands. Dendrochronological analysis of the oak boards from which
the panel is made gives an earliest usage date of 1539.
Scrots is first recorded in England in the latter half of 1545, from when he is paid an annual
salary of £62 10s. This is notably more than the £30 Holbein was paid as the King’s painter, and
it has been suggested that Scrots’ experience as painter to the Habsburg court in the
Netherlands, for which he was also well paid, may account for the increase. Later documents
style him as the ‘Dutchman the King’s Painter’.1
However, despite his apparent fame, very few English portraits are firmly attributable to Scrots.
A unique anamorphic portrait of Edward VI, in which the young king is seen in a distorted
image which only becomes apparent when viewed from the side, was, in the early 18th Century,
inscribed ‘Guilhelmus pingebat’ on the frame, and has long been considered to be by Scrots.2
Scrots is also believed to be the artist of a number of high quality full-length portraits of Edward
after he became king in 1547. Despite earlier suggestions that ‘only one new type [of portrait]
came into circulation of Edward as King’, these in fact fall into two subtly different types.3 Both
adopt the same full-frontal pose developed by Holbein for his portraits of Henry VIII, and
conform to a format in which the background is made up of a marble column on the left and
drapery on the right. But there is nonetheless a distinct difference in the likenesses.
The first is perhaps best known through the full-length example in the Royal Collection, which is
undated and was formerly in the Lumley collection. Another example, also undated, is in the
Musée Joseph-Dechelette, Rouanne. If the inscription of September 1550 on a smaller head and
shoulders version of the Royal Collection portrait previously at Rushton Hall is correct, this
likeness was in wide circulation by late 1550. We may speculate that it was the first formal fulllength of Edward as King by Scrots,4 and for that reason may have been commissioned towards
the beginning of his reign.
The present portrait type shows Edward in the same pose but with a slightly older face. The
version now in the Louvre includes the Garter medal, but this is thought to be a later addition.
The version in Los Angeles is painted in a very similar technique to the present version, and it
has been suggested that both were painted by the same hand. It differs only in the inclusion of a
series of verses in English, Greek and Latin, then the common language of Europe. The verses
suggest that, like many royal portraits at the time, it was intended to be sent abroad.
The only contemporaneous documentation for a work by Scrots may be relevant to the present
portrait. In March 15525 Scrots was paid 50 marks for ‘three great tables’, a phrase commonly
thought to refer to three full-length portraits on panel. Two of these were of Edward VI, and
were to be sent to Sir Thomas Hoby and Sir John Mason, both ambassadors. The third was a
picture of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, who had been executed for treason in 1547.
The portraits sent to Edward’s ambassadors are significant, because they would doubtless have
been intended for use in any potential marriage negotiations for the King. Sir John Mason was
ambassador in France when the marriage treaty between Edward VI and a daughter of Henry II
of France was settled in Angers on 20th July 1551. We also know of a portrait of Edward seen in
France by the French King by October 1551. Then, Sir William Pickering wrote to the Privy
Council from Paris, that Henry II said of the portrait, which had been taken to France from
England by a Frenchman, ‘it was very excellent: and yet that the natural, as he was persuaded,
much exceeded the artificial.’6 Such an exchange gives a glimpse into the diplomatic use of royal
portraiture, not least as a vehicle for flattery, then as now a vital part in any diplomatic exchange.
Erna Auerbach, ‘Tudor Artists’, London 1954, p.187.
National Portrait Gallery, London.
3 Roy Strong, Tudor & Stuart Portraits in the National Portrait Gallery, p.93.
4 The portrait is inscribed Ano. Domino. M.D.L Septembris XXIX
5 1551 old style. John Strype, Ecclesiastical Momrials, Vol.II, Part II, Chapter XXX, p.217, published 1822.
6 Auerbach p.75
1
2
Any portraits used during the negotiations in France would most likely have been the very latest
likenesses of Edward. It is conceivable, therefore, that the portrait type of which the present
work is an example was commissioned for such a purpose, and even that, with the Los Angeles
version, it was one of the two paid for (somewhat belatedly, as was customary) in March 1552. It
would not only have been the latest portrait type of the king, but is arguably the first in which he
looks fully adult. Like all Tudor monarchs, Edward seems to have taken an interest in the
dissemination of his image. We also know that he was interested in portraiture in general, thanks
to his personal use of Holbein’s book of portrait drawings when he was a child. However, there
was inevitably an important political dimension to Edward’s portraiture, for royal portraiture in
the hands of the Tudors was overwhelmingly dynastic and political in purpose.
The portraiture of Edward VI is the one of the most varied of all Tudor monarchs. It is certainly
the most extensive of any Tudor child, perhaps even of any royal child. It has often been
assumed that the bulk of Edward’s portraits stem from his historical portrayal as a Protestant
icon, especially after the religious revolution following the reign of his sister Mary. But
contemporary Tudor royal portraits, such as this example, were not historical records. They were
commissioned as current likenesses, either in an attempt to project the royal face, or as symbols
of loyalty, and only an up to date portrait was therefore acceptable. Recent research has shown
that some royal portraits were entirely over-painted in an attempt to maintain an up to date
likeness of the monarch; the Anglesey Abbey portrait of Henry VIII as a young man is in fact
painted over an earlier portrait of Henry as a child.
The same was true especially in Edward’s case. For not only was he the heir to the throne and
the raison d’etre of years of political upheaval, but he was a child whose appearance changed every
year. As a result, the demand for new portraits was great, and today we have a complete visual
record of what Edward looked like as he grew up. The present portrait would, had Edward not
died soon after it was painted, have had a ‘shelf life’ of only a few years.
Cat.3
WORKSHOP OF GUILLIM SCROTS (fl.1537-1553)
Portrait of King Edward VI (1537-1553)
Oil on Panel
19 x 14 1/2 in. (48.2 cm x 36.9 cm)
Provenance
Dowager Lady Willoughby de Broke;
Sir John Hay Williams, 2nd Baronet of Bodelwyddan, Anglesey;
By descent to their daughter, Margaret, who married Sir Edmund Verney, 3rd Baronet of Claydon
House in 1868;
By descent to their son, Sir Harry Verney, 4th Bart, at Plas Rhianva, Anglesey;
Thence by descent until 2013.
The head-type seen in the present work derives from Guillim Scrots’ 1551 full-length portraittype of Edward, which was the last portrait for which the king sat [see previous catalogue entry].
The present work was almost certainly painted during his reign, for dendrochonological analysis
of the panel has shown that the oak used was felled in the first half of the sixteenth century, with
an earliest possible creation date of 1549, and there would have been little political demand for
portraits of Edward during the following reign of his Catholic sister, Mary. Scrots had been court
painter to the Regent of the Netherlands, Mary of Hungary, and was recruited by Henry VIII as
Holbein's successor at the close of 1545. His work, covering less than 10 years in this country,
has never been satisfactorily reconstructed.
The quality of Edward’s iconography on this scale varies widely, depending largely on the
original function of the portrait and the patron who commissioned it. The present work, with
tracings of gilding on Edward’s costume [Fig.1] would have been an expensive commission and
was, perhaps, painted by a native painter, as it has been suggested they showed a preference for
gilded detailing around this time.7 The level of competence displayed in the under-drawing is
remarkably high and through the use of infra-red reflectography, we can see that the under
drawing was undertaken with great precision and care [Fig.2], whilst also revealing a distinct level
of confidence, seen most evidently in the area around the neck and collar [Fig.3]. The skill of the
artist in the initial stages of construction had a critical effect on the quality of finish – if the
preparatory drawing was applied too heavily and in a ham-fisted manner, the finished portrait
would appear too solid and underwhelming.
7
T. Cooper, Making Art in Tudor Britain, in ‘The British Art Journal, Vol. IX, no.3, Spring 2009, p.9.
Fig.1. In the decoration on Edward’s doublet we can see traces of
gilt, allowing a fascinating insight into how lavish the painted
costume was intended to be and how expensive this sort of
commission would have been for the patron.
Fig.2. Under infrared light the under-drawing is clearly visible.
Cat.4
WORKSHOP OF MARCUS GHEERAERTS II
Portrait of William Cecil, Lord Burghley (1520/1-1598) c.1592
Oil on Panel
21 x 16 in. 53.4 x 46 cm
Provenance
Probably by descent from the sitter’s sister, Margaret Cecil, who married Roger Cave of Stanford
(d.1586);
Thence by descent through the Cave family, later the Barons Braye, at Stanford Hall,
Northamptonshire;
With Philip Mould & Co. in 2008;
English Private Collection.
Literature
Roy Strong, ‘National Portrait Gallery, Tudor & Jacobean Portraits’, London 1969, Vol.I, p.32
James L. Caw, ‘The Portraits of the Cecils’ in F. Barnard (ed.) ‘William Cecil, Lord Burghley’,
London 1904, p.94.
We are grateful to Edward Wilson, Emeritus Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford, for his assistance in
researching the provenance of this painting.
William Cecil was one of the most successful political figures of the Tudor age, and served as
Elizabeth I’s chief councillor for most of her reign. His influence continued after his death in the
person of his younger son, Robert, who succeeded his father as the monarch’s principal advisor
into the reign of James I. Cecil was thus the progenitor of one of the most powerful families in
England, one of whom, Robert, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, became Prime Minister three times.
Their legacy can still be seen today in the impressive estates at Hatfield and Burghley.
The foundation of the Cecil dynasty was laid by David Cecil, a minor member of the gentry who
joined Henry Tudor on his march through Wales in 1485. The family’s influence gradually grew
at court, and resulted in the young William Cecil, after education at Cambridge University, being
appointed as private secretary to Protector Somerset during the reign of Edward VI. In an early
display of the political dexterity that allowed him to survive the Tudor age unscathed, Cecil
escaped the fallout from Somerset’s fall (save a brief period in the Tower) and swiftly gained the
confidence of his successor, the Duke of Northumberland: he was knighted in 1551 and joined
the Privy Council. In 1553 he further managed to evade recrimination for his part in the
disastrous attempt to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne. Cecil had, albeit unwillingly, signed
Edward’s ‘Devise’ for the succession to exclude the Catholic Mary Tudor, but, after realizing the
inevitability of Mary’s succession, he swiftly plotted to bring down Northumberland and the
Greys.
As an active Protestant, Cecil played no official role in Mary’s reign, preferring to join instead the
household of the young Princess Elizabeth. Thus began the closest relationship of confidence
and trust that has ever existed between an English monarch and their advisor. The new Queen
appointed Cecil as her Secretary of State on the first day of her reign in 1558, placing him at the
heart of her government. Almost every letter of consequence, both foreign and domestic,
crossed his desk, which, combined with the adept control of his royal mistress, gave Cecil
considerable influence over English affairs.
Perhaps his greatest achievement was the development of a ‘British’ foreign policy, which helped
pave the way for the union of England and Scotland on Elizabeth’s death. Cecil was amongst the
first to realize that the religious changes sweeping across Europe in the mid sixteenth century
added a new dimension to the old geopolitical and dynastic rivalries, and could be turned to
England’s advantage. He therefore sought to ally himself with, for example, Protestants in the
Netherlands and Huguenots in La Rochelle, as a means of destabilizing the hostile Catholic
regimes of Spain and France. His similar support for the Protestant cause in Scotland led in part
to the eventual deposition of the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, who, alongside the Armada,
presented the greatest threat to Elizabeth’s reign. And it was arguably Cecil’s staunch support for
the Protestant Regent in Scotland, the Earl of Moray, that ensured Mary’s son, James VI, was
brought up a Protestant, thus smoothing the way for James’ succession to the English throne in
1603.
Cecil’s powerful position allowed him to wield significant patronage. His ability to influence
everything from positions at court to grants of land in part explains the high demand for his
portrait. It would have been typical for a family to display their patron’s portrait, such as the
present example, alongside a portrait of Elizabeth and possibly themselves as a means of
conspicuously displaying their status. Dendrochronology gives an earliest felling date for the oak
panels on which the portrait is painted as 1592, its high quality attesting no doubt to its origins in
the workshop of Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, whose authorship is generally attributed to the
three-quarter length versions at Hatfield and Burghley and the National Portrait Gallery,
London.
Cecil is shown wearing the robes of the Garter with his right hand raised and grasping the wand
of the Lord Treasurer - a position awarded to him by Elizabeth on 15 July 1572 on the death of
William Paulet, 1st Marquess of Winchester (c.1483/5-1572). As a Knight of the Garter Cecil was
entitled to add the Anglo-Norman phrase ‘Honi soit qui mal y pense’ (‘Shamed be he who thinks ill of it’
to his armorial design, which we see proudly shown in the top left corner of the portrait. The
same motto, this time surrounding a small Tudor rose, can be seen on each of the links on the
‘great collar’ seen around Cecil’s neck [Fig.1].
The Gheeraerts portrait remained an iconic historical likeness as can be seen, for example, much
later in the nineteenth century when the enamellist Henry Bone (1755-1834) included a large
enamel copy of the Burghley version in his celebrated series ‘Portraits of Illustrious Characters in the
Reign of Queen Elizabeth’ [currently with Philip Mould & Company, Fig.2].
Fig.1. Detail of the ‘great collar’ showing decoration
of the Tudor rose with inscription ‘Honi soit qui mal y
pense’ around the outside. This motto, which
translates to ‘Shamed be he who thinks ill of it’ was
reserved only for use by Knights of the Garter, who
could also add it to their coat of arms – as can be
seen in the top left of the portrait.
Fig.2. Henry Bone R.A. (1755-1834), after Marcus
Gheeraerts, Enamel , 21cm x 17cm, completed 1812. One of
Bone’s major works - this copy was taken from the
Gheeraerts portrait of Cecil at Burghley. Bone executed these
large enamel copies after seminal Tudor portraits between
1807-22 – a number of which are in the collection at
Kingston Lacy, Dorset.
Cat.5
WORKSHOP OF ROBERT PEAKE THE ELDER (c.1551–1619)
Portrait of Prince Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (1594-1612) c.1604
Oil on Panel
22 x17 3/4 ins. (56cm x 45cm)
Provenance
Dowager Lady Willoughby de Broke;
Sir John Hay Williams, 2nd Baronet of Bodelwyddan, Anglesey;
By descent to their daughter, Margaret, who married Sir Edmund Verney, 3rd Baronet of Claydon
House in 1868;
By descent to their son, Sir Harry Verney, 4th Bart, at Plas Rhianva, Anglesey;
Thence by descent until 2013.
Henry Frederick was the eldest son of James VI of Scotland (James I of England) (1566-1625)
and Anne of Denmark (1574-1619). Henry’s early life was quite unsettled, being entrusted into
the care of his father’s close friend John Erskine, 2nd Earl of Mar (c.1558-1634), much to the
dislike of his mother who vigorously campaigned for his return. It wasn’t until spring 1603
however, when Elizabeth I (1533-1603) died and James was recognized as King of England, that
Anne found an opportunity to regain custody of Henry. James left for London and Anne, who
was four months pregnant, was supposed to follow later, instead she travelled to Sterling where
she refused to leave without Henry. After successfully lobbying James for her son’s return, Anne
was finally reunited with Henry in late May and they both travelled together to London,
departing on 1st June 1603.
As Henry matured, his impressive abilities as a potential leader soon became apparent. He
showed a particular interest in foreign affairs, which resulted in a number of politically
‘advantageous’ marriage proposals from Catholic foreign leaders - the majority of which were
declined on the basis of his steadfast Protestantism. On 4th June 1610 Henry was installed as
Prince of Wales at Westminster Palace, the ceremony supposedly akin to a coronation with
Henry wearing an ermine-lined gown costing £1,300. The celebrations lasted the whole year and
included water pageants, theatre performances and jousting - the young Henry participating in
the latter.
Henry was a determined patron across a number of artistic disciplines, and collected work by
Northern Italian and Netherlandish artists, as well as bronzes, medals and coins. Native talent
was also cultivated under Henry’s brief tenure as prince - he commissioned paintings by the
English painter Robert Peake the Elder (c.1551-1619) as well as designs by the English baroque
architect Inigo Jones (1573-1652). In mid-October 1612 Henry suddenly fell ill, and, just a few
weeks later on 6th November 1612, Henry died of what is now thought to have been typhoid
fever. The subsequent national outpouring of grief was unprecedented.
Henry’s iconography derives largely from the portraiture of two artists/workshops; Robert Peake
the Elder (c.1551-1619) and Isaac Oliver (c.1565-1617). Peake, who was Henry’s personal
painter, painted three primary full-lengths between c.1604-10, from which nearly all
contemporary portraits derive. The first and arguably best known, is the Hunting Group of
Henry, c.1604 [Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York], which shows Henry, along with his
friend John, Lord Harington of Exon (1592-1614), standing above a slain stag with his sword
drawn. It is from this work that the present portrait derives. In the Hunting portrait Henry is
seen wearing green, traditionally identified as the colour for outdoor pursuits including sport and
hunting8, in the present work however Henry’s green hat has been substituted for a white one – a
colour associated with purity and humility9 - and worn with the white ostrich feathers of the
Prince of Wales. The black and gold jewel seen on Henry’s hat [Fig.1], with three main spears
interspersed with slighter ones, appears in varying forms in other portraits of the period, such as
‘Woman in Masque Costume’ c.1606, by John de Critz (1552-1642)10
It was common practice for an artist’s workshop to replicate a specific head-pattern for
production on a smaller scale, and, especially during the Tudor period, these patterns were
sometimes shared amongst a number of artists and workshops for replication as the official
likeness [see Cat.3].
Dendrochronological analysis of the panel on which the present work is painted, has revealed an
earliest possible creation date of 1589, some fifteen years prior to Peake’s portrait of the young
Henry hunting. This can be explained through careful study of the portrait which reveals, on
close inspection, the presence of an over-painted work beneath [Fig.2]. The identity of the
female sitter, painted c.1590, is sadly unknown, although the physiognomy is not too dissimilar
to that of Elizabeth I - it would, of course, be perfectly logical that her likeness was painted over
and replaced by a more up-to date royal image following her death in 1603.
Our first certain knowledge of Peake comes in 1576, when he is recorded as working for the
Office of the Revels, although the earliest documented portrait dates from 1587. Peake's later
career continued to be distinguished, and at the accession of King James I, he painted impressive
portraits of Henry and other members of the Royal family. Recent work has extended our
understanding of Peake's work, and, despite having at one time been in danger of obscurity, he is
now recognised as a major figure in the evolution of a British School of painting.
A. Ribeiro, Fashion and Fiction: Dress in Art and Literature in Stuart England, 2005, p.30.
A. Ribeiro, Fashion and Fiction: Dress in Art and Literature in Stuart England, 2005, p.29.
10
Worn once at the waist (with no interspersed spears) and twice within the hair decoration.
8
9
Fig.1. The jewel seen on Henry’s hat
appears in varying forms in other early
Stuart portraits of courtiers including
‘Woman in Masque Costume’ by John de Critz
(1552-1642), painted c.1606.
Fig.2. Although unable to prove with certainty, the over-painted face
beneath could possibly be that of Elizabeth I, whose likeness following her
death in 1603 may have been replaced by a more upto-date royal image.
Cat.6
TIZIANO VECELLIO, CALLED TITIAN (1485/9-1576)
Portrait of a Venetian Admiral, possibly Francesco Duodo (1518-1592)
Oil on Canvas
34 7/8 x 30 ¼ in. 88.6 by 77 cm
Provenance
Traditionally, the Trivulzio family, Milan;
Bonomi collection (inventory no. 106), Milan, until 1933;
by descent in Monte Carlo until sold to a collector in the 1960s;
by descent to his son, by whom sold, Sotheby's, London, 3 July 1997, lot 63;
bt. French & Co.;
by whom sold Sotheby’s, New York, 29 January 2009, lot 56.
Exhibited
New York, Salander O'Reilly Gallery, Rembrandt and the Venetian Influence, 3 October - 18
November 2000, no. 6.
Literature
W. Suida, Tizian, 1933, pp. 83, 166 and 187, reproduced plate CLXXb;
G. Adriani, Anton van Dyck: Italienisches Skizzenbuch, 1940, p. 28, under no. 107;
R. Fisher, Titian's Assistants During the Later Years, London and New York 1977, pp. 103-4,
reproduced fig. 93 (as possibly by Palma Giovane);
F. Ilchman, Rembrandt and the Venetian Influence, exhibition catalogue, New York, Salander
O'Reilly Gallery, 3 October - 18 November 2000, pp. 22-27, and p. 70, cat. no. 6.
We are grateful to Prof. Mauro Lucco, Prof. Peter Humfrey, of the University of St Andrews, and Prof. Paul
Joannides, of the University of Cambridge, for confirming the attribution to Titian on the basis of first-hand
inspection.
This portrait of a Venetian admiral was painted towards the end of Titian’s career, probably in
the mid-1570s, and so must be one the last portraits he painted. As with most works by Titian of
this date, such as Diana and Actaeon in the National Gallery, London, it is painted in a spirited and
broad manner, which in parts such as the armour and drapery leads to an overall effect that
borders on the impressionistic. The sitter is placed in a relatively simple composition, but is still
given a strong sense of status and dignity by ensuring the viewer’s focus is directed onto the face.
The profile lion’s head on the shoulder of the armour is vividly depicted and imparts a degree of
animation otherwise lacking in the sitter’s penetrating but serious gaze.
Two drawings in the British Museum attest to the impact the portrait made on artists in the
generations after Titian’s death. Perhaps it was the picture’s uncompromising characterisation
that made it noteworthy, for both drawings, one by an unidentified late 16th Century Venetian
artist (fig. 1) and one by Anthony Van Dyck (fig. 2) of c.1623, appear to focus on the sitter’s
striking face. The earlier drawing is done in black and white chalk on blue paper and is inscribed
in ink at the bottom, probably in a seventeenth century hand, ‘Tiziano’, which has subsequently
been struck through.11 This drawing was formerly attributed to Palma il Giovane. Van Dyck’s
rendition, in his Italian sketchbook, is done in ink, rapidly, but again conveys the sitter’s piercing
11
291 x 237 mm, FAWK, 5211.63
intensity. Van Dyck has inscribed the sketch: ‘Titian’.12 A sketch on the same page of the book
shows Raphael’s portrait of Pope Leo X and his Nephews, then in Florence.
Despite being evidently well known in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the
picture was entirely unknown thereafter until published by Suida in 1933. It was then in the
Bonomi collection in Milan, having previously, by repute, belonged to the Trivulzio family in
that city. The picture continued to be little known, no photographs other than that used by Suida
being known, and was sold in the 1960s to a private collector. It first surfaced at auction in
London in 1997, where it was purchased by a New York gallery, French & Co. An unfortunate
restoration attempt, however, which saw the picture substantially over-painted (fig. 3) meant that
they were unable to sell it, however, and the picture was placed back at auction in 2009.
The picture is a rare example of Titian’s late technique, and, unlike so many works by him, is
fortunately in good condition. A significant number of pentimenti, as seen by x-ray (fig. 4), shows
that the picture was painted with great speed and vigour. The sitter’s head has been moved to the
right, as has his right elbow, while his left shoulder has been moved to the left. The neck of the
armour was completed prior to the application of the beard. Furthermore, the method of
painting confirms that the picture was painted in rapid bursts; the paint has been quickly but
thinly applied and in several stages, the lower layers being allowed to dry before the artist
revisited the work. This technique accords with Palma Vecchio’s account of Titian’s practice, as
described by Marco Boschini:
‘[Titian] blocked in his pictures with a mass of colours, which served as a bed or foundation for what he wished to
express, and upon which he would then build. I myself have seen such underpainting, vigorously applied with a
loaded brush, of pure red ochre, which would then serve as a middle ground; then with a stroke of white lead, with
the same brush then dipped in red, black or yellow, he created the light and dark areas of the relief effect. And in
this way with four strokes of the brush he was able to suggest a magnificent figure… After having thus established
this crucial foundation, he turned the pictures to the wall and left them there, without looking at them for several
months.’
Some parts of the picture appear unresolved, and may even be unfinished, and these areas are
doubtless what led the picture’s most recent owners to misunderstand how Titian painted later in
his career. Following its purchase in 1997 by French & Co., the picture was ‘restored’ in the
United States. The US restorers took the sketchy and rapid application of paint to be damage
and filled in large swathes of the canvas, totally altering the picture’s appearance. Large passages
were over-painted: the drapery was rendered flat and shapeless; the fingers became crudely
defined, and the background was made uniformly flat. Details such as the reflection of the sword
in the armour and the knot of the cloak were totally obliterated.
Not surprisingly, some then questioned the attribution to Titian. Happily, modern retouching
media are non-invasive and very simply removed. But whilst some of the worst over-paint, most
noticeably in the red cloak, was removed prior to the 2009 auction, much of the canvas,
including almost the entire background, was still obscured and misunderstood. The process of
removing the later additions has now been carefully completed by Philip Mould & Co. over
some months, and the picture can once again be seen in its original state.
Research undertaken by the previous owners may have advanced the picture in at least one
respect. In the exhibition catalogue accompanying the 2000 New York exhibition Frederick
Ilchman, now a curator at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, suggested that the sitter in the
12
The whole page, 198 x 158 mm, Flemish c.204 XVIIc.
portrait was Francesco Duodo, a Venetian admiral. Ilchman’s analysis was based first on the
premise that the sitter, given his attire, must be a Venetian admiral, and that Duodo, to judge
from two contemporary likenesses (a bust by Alessandro Vittoria in the Ca' d'Oro, Venice and
an oil portrait of the late 1580s by a follower of Tintoretto in the Museo Storico Navale, Venice)
was a plausible candidate. Duodo was a major figure in the naval victory over the Turks in 1571
at Lepanto. Given the date of the present portrait, it seems sensible to suggest, if the sitter is
Duodo, that the portrait was commissioned to celebrate his role in the emphatic defeat of
Venice’s main enemy.
Fig.1. 16th C Italian follower of Titian, black and
white chalk on paper, British Museum, London.
Fig. 2. Sir Anthony Van Dyck after Titian, British Museum,
London.
Fig. 3, the portrait following ‘conservation’ post 1997.
Fig. 4, x-ray of Titian’s ‘Portrait of an Admiral’,
showing a number of ‘pentimenti’, or changes
introduced by the artist, particularly around the
head, shoulder and hand.
Cat.7
SIR PETER LELY (1618 -1680)
Portrait of a Lady as a Saint
Oil on Panel
12 ½ x 10 ¼ inches 31.5 x 25.9 cm
At the outset of his career in England, Lely often painted in a reduced scale on panel in works
that reflect the influence of Dutch contemporaries such as van Poelenburgh. This picture is a
rare example of this early style, and shows a woman in the guise of a Saint, probably Saint Agnes,
the patron saint of young women and chastity. The exposed breast, however, clearly hints at a
secular, even titillating ambiguity in the subject. The Saint in this picture is, with variations in
drapery and positioning of the arms, a repetition of the half-draped woman who is the focus of
the Concert. This remains no guide to her identity, since the identification of the Concert as a
portrait of Lely's family has long been dismissed.
There is an immediate appeal in the elegiac mood of this fresh and delicate landscape, and in the
harmony of clear blue drapery and pale flesh. There is much in this painting which seems to
suggest not only Lely's larger-scale images of court ladies but to look forward to the rococo
portraiture of the next century. The former impression, at least, is deceptive. This painting is
unlikely to be intended as a commissioned portrait, and although Lely's later portraits may come
to resemble this painting, his manner during this period - the later 1640s - is far more subdued in
tone.
Cat.8
SIR PETER LELY (1618-1680)
Portrait of Mary Farrington (née Smith) (d.1717)
Oil on Canvas
30 1/8 x 25 inches (76.5cm x 63.5 cm)
Provenance
Agnew's, London, by 1948;
Anonymous sale; Sotheby Parke Bernet, New York, 16 November 1979, lot 145, as Circle of Sir
Peter Lely;
Dr. Robert P. Coggins, Marietta, Georgia;
Private Collection, USA.
Exhibited
Kennesaw College, 1980s.
Literature
R.B. Becket, Lely, London, 1951, p. 42, no. 149 as ‘Dame Ann Dashwood’.
Sir Peter Lely’s character and talent dominated the art world in the second half of the
seventeenth century in England. Though Pepys famously described him as ‘a mighty proud man
and full of state’, Lely’s skill for portraiture meant he assumed the mantle of Sir Anthony Van
Dyck (whom he admired to such an extent that he owned Van Dyck’s last Self-Portrait) with
ease. Despite sharing the stage with many accomplished painters, the particular brio of his
technique and his considerable personal charm guaranteed him the most prestigious patronage –
and for nearly twenty years royal patronage from his position as Principle Painter to King
Charles II. Everyone of consequence in his age sat to him, and it is in his portraits that we form
our conception of the cautious solemnity of the 1650s and the scandalous excesses of the years
following the Restoration.
This enigmatic portrait, set within a feigned oval stone frame, is a fine example of Lely’s
technique towards the end of his career, and was dated by R. B. Becket in his Lely monograph to
c.1675. These late works are noted for their subtle flesh tones and tangible forms, which, in the
case of the present work, was until recently left concealed by generations of discoloured varnish.
Now removed, areas of spontaneity, seen especially in the background, have also come to light
and reflect the increasingly gestural approach of Lely in his late works.
The sitter is Mary Farrington (née Smith), daughter of wealthy Hampshire landowner John Smith
(d.1690) and his wife Mary Wright (b.1623) and husband of merchant Thomas Farrington of
Chislehurst, Kent. Little information can be found on Mary’s life although we do know that she
had at least one brother, John Smith (1655/6-1723), a politician and twice Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and a sister, Anne, who would later marry Sir Samuel Dashwood (1642-1705).
In 1663 Mary married Thomas Farrington and in c.1664 they had their first and only son,
Thomas Farrington (c.1664-1712), who went on to lead a successful career in the military as well
as representing the borough of Malmesbury in parliament between 1705-12.
Cat.9
SIR PETER LELY (1618-1680)
Portrait of Anne Killigrew (1660-1685)
Oil on Canvas
48 1/8 x 38 5/8 in. 122.3cm x 98cm
Provenance
Probably the ‘Portrait of Mrs Killigrew’ by Lely sold at Hutchins’, London, 10th April 1797, lot 34,
sold by James Scouler senior;
Anonymous sale, Sothebys, London, 25 November 2004, lot.22;
English Private Collection.
This important painting is thought to be the only portrait by Lely to show a sitter in the act of
painting. The sitter is Anne Killigrew, perhaps the most celebrated female English prodigy of the
seventeenth century. Until recently thought to have been painted with some studio assistance,
conservation by Philip Mould & Co. has revealed that the picture had been substantially over-painted
by a later restorer. Now that these later, detrimental additions have been removed, the picture’s
underlying quality can be revealed once more.
A poet and artist of great repute, Killigrew died of smallpox at the age of just twenty-five, prompting
the Poet Laureate John Dryden, among others, to pen one of his best known homilies; “to the
accomplished young Lady… excellent in the Two sister-arts of Poesy and Painting”. Here, Killigrew
is shown painting a small portrait, which she holds in her hands, along with a small paint brush. On
the table in front of her we see an Old Master head and shoulders drawing of a man, which may be
the same head she is holding. Lely has chosen to show Killigrew in the act of studying the art of
painting, a pose which may imply that he taught the young aspiring artist. At the very least, it seems
likely that Killigrew enjoyed access to his renowned collection of Old Master paintings and drawings.
Unfortunately, little is known of Killigrew’s artistic and literary upbringing. A daughter of a staunchly
Royalist Chaplain, and niece of the roguish playwright Thomas Killigrew, we can assume that she had
access to a classical education, and was immersed from an early age in an artistic milieu. Her artistic
influences must stem from her time at court. In 1683 she is listed as being one of Mary of Modena’s
(wife of James II) six maids of honour, and given her many links to the Royal Household, she was
doubtless able to study at length the Royal art collection. Only three paintings by Killigrew are
known to survive. ‘Venus Attired by the Graces’ is the largest and most significant, and is now in the
collection of Falmouth Art Gallery (having formerly been with Philip Mould & Co.). The two other
works are a self-portrait [at Berkeley Castle] and a portrait of James II [in the Royal Collection], and
are both small full-lengths.
John Dryden, in his Ode to Killigrew’s memory, describes her painting as nothing less than an
incredible adjunct to her literary skill, “one would have thought, she should have been content” with
her poetic endeavours, he wrote;
“But what can young ambitious souls confine?
To the next realm she stretched her sway,
For Painture near adjoining lay…”
It was claimed after her death that Killigrew was fluent in Latin and Greek. The few details we do
know of her life come from her poems, which have become well known for their classical elegance,
and betray an accomplishment well beyond her years. Her collected poems were published soon after
her death, and quickly established her literary reputation.
Cat.10
GEORGE ROMNEY (1734-1802)
Study of Emma Hamilton, ‘Absence’ (1761 - 1815)
Oil on Canvas
49 ½ x 39 ½ inches, 125.7 x 100.3 cm
Provenance
According to Christie’s catalogue (1879), ‘Painted for the family of W. Hudson of Scarborough’;
By descent to G. Hudson;
By whom consigned to Christie’s, 31st May 1879, lot 232A, ‘Romney, Lady Hamilton’, described
in ‘The Times’ as ‘Lady Hamilton as Ariadne, nearly life size, in white dress and straw hat, in a
cave by the sea’;
Bought in at £231, and delivered to Graves & Co.;
Re-consigned, by G. Hudson under Graves’ aegis, at Christie’s 29th May 1880, lot 120F, ‘George
Romney, Lady Hamilton, as Ariadne, half-length’;
Caroline, Duchess of Montrose;
By whom sold, Christie’s 14th July 1894, lot39;
Bought in at 450 guineas;
Christie’s 4th May 1895, lot 87, bt. Lawrie for 195 guineas;
Sir William Cunliffe Brooks, 1st Bt. (d.1900);
Alfred H. Mulliken;
American Art Association, New York, 5th January 1933, lot 48;
Lydia Reeves, New York;
Sotheby’s, New York, 17th April 1986, lot 119, as ‘attributed to Romney’;
US Private Collection.
Literature
‘The Times’, Tuesday 3rd June, 1879, p.6;
‘The Academy’, 1879, Vol. 15, p.507;
Humphrey Ward and William Roberts, ‘George Romney, A Catalogue Raisonné of his Works’ (London
& New York 1904), Vol. II, No. 2b, p.180;
Alex Kidson, ‘George Romney 1734-1802’ (exhibition catalogue, National Portrait Gallery, London,
2001), p.200.
We are grateful to Dr. Alex Kidson for confirming the attribution to Romney on first-hand inspection of the
original.
This newly discovered portrait is a major addition to George Romney’s oeuvre, and represents
the first attempt at one of his best known portraits of his celebrated muse, Emma Hamilton. It is
a preliminary study for the (slightly smaller) portrait of Emma now in the National Maritime
Museum, Greenwich, which has variously been titled ‘Emma Hamilton as Ariadne’, or ‘Emma
Hamilton as Absence’. Lost for many years, recent conservation by Philip Mould & Co. has
removed several layers of obscuring over-paint and old varnish to reveal a spirited work by an
artist at the height of his powers.
Romney’s fascination with Emma produced one of the great artist-model relationships in British
art. They first met in 1782 – she (then Emma Hart) was sixteen, he forty-seven. Her then lover,
George Greville (1749-1809), had brought her to the artist's studio. As Romney's model for the
next four years, Emma found an outlet for her theatrical abilities which resulted in one of the
most famous and fruitful partnerships in English portraiture. The artist seized upon Emma's
natural beauty and talent for role-play and painted her obsessively in various allegorical and
classical guises. As became a woman whose whole life seemed to revolve around responding to
the needs and sensitivities of men, Emma was in turn adept at handling her artistic admirer. The
results can be seen throughout Romney’s pictures of the 1780s, a decade that formed the
highpoint of his career. The concentrated study of the most sensual woman of the age raised
Romney’s artistic energy to new levels, and inspired him to produce his best work. Emma, it
should be remembered, was well rewarded too. Romney’s pictures helped launch the concept of
Emma as celebrity. They were often engraved and reproduced within weeks of completion. And
it is through Romney that Emma has been transmitted to posterity as an un-aging, timeless
beauty; posterity sees Emma through Romney’s eyes, just as it hears her through Nelson’s letters.
The subject matter here however, showing Emma in a state of sadness in some far off place,
doubtless reflects Romney’s own distress at his model’s departure, in March 1786, to Naples.
The by then impoverished George Greville had sent Emma to Naples in order to look after his
elderly uncle Sir William Hamilton, the British ambassador to the King of Naples. Emma soon
became Sir William’s mistress, and later married him. On meeting Admiral Horatio Nelson in
1798, however, she started an affair that lasted until Nelson's death at Trafalgar in 1805. In 1786,
Emma’s departure was to Romney a catastrophe, and, already a notoriously prickly character (he
was described as a man of ‘aspen nerves, that every breath could ruffle’), appears to have led to
the artist’s increasing depression towards the end of his life. Alex Kidson has suggested that
Romney, in the present portrait, has chosen to depict Emma in a cavern by the shore at Naples
‘pining’ for Greville, and, perhaps, for himself. The final version of the picture, which remained
in Romney’s possession, shows a distant ship sailing out to sea. It is notable that in the portrait
of Emma painted on her return to London in 1791, The Ambassadress [Blanton Museum of Art],
Romney chose to show her in an almost identical but reversed composition, in which Emma is
shown looking directly at the artist, with an entirely different and more positive emotion.
The present, newly conserved picture betrays many of Romney’s trademark techniques of the
late 1770s onwards, after his revelatory visit to Rome. Romney spent a year and a half in Italy, in
which time he perfected a change in his technique that was subtle but transformative. Though he
still painted in his essentially neo-classical style, with simple forms, long flowing contours and
bold pigments, from 1775 onwards Romney’s portraits grew in confidence and technical
competence. When in Rome, Romney noted in his sketchbook that he should henceforth,
‘attempt to paint with a fat pencil, be very careful to lay the colour on right and with good gusto.’
This new approach, principally the result of studying artists such as Titian, translated into the
spontaneity so vital for any artist of the first rank.
And here, as with Romney’s most dynamic studies, we get the impression that the artist saw his
subject emerge spontaneously from the blank canvas, and set about revealing it with fluid, liquid
paint without drawing. It was common for Romney to work up sketches and studies, but for
Emma he seems to have taken the creation of poses for her to a new, almost obsessive level,
working on a full scale study with vigorously applied brushstrokes in the white dress. A number
of differences can be seen between the present picture and that in the National Maritime
Museum, most notably in the dress and the loosely sketched in suggestion of hands in a more
raised position, as Romney experimented with the pose. In the background we can see that
Romney cleaned his brushes vigorously in the background after painting areas such as the head
and hands, allowing him to build up layers of complimentary colours over the whole canvas.
These areas had been over-painted in the 20th Century with a single, dark tone, doubtless done
at the time the picture was exported to the United States in order to make the picture look more
‘finished’, and thus more commercial.
Cat.11
ENGLISH SCHOOL, EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Newfoundland and Spaniel in a Coastal Landscape
Oil on Canvas
48 7/8 x 66 inches (124cm x 167.5 cm)
Provenance
English Private Collection
The present work is a rare example of the genre of dog portraiture which began to emerge
during the eighteenth century due to the increasing importance of dogs in English life. The
emphasis on the dogs themselves, rather than their featuring as part of a scene, and their direct
gaze at the viewer is unusual and serves to highlight the growing close relationship between man
and dog in the eighteenth century.
The larger dog in the present picture has been identified as a Newfoundland13, a dog
characterised by is large size, strength and gentle nature. The coastal landscape alludes to the
dog’s function, but the dog itself is clearly the focus here, and he fills the large canvas,
dominating the scene. The smaller dog depicted, a small or toy spaniel, serves to emphasize the
size of the Newfoundland whose paw rests on the spaniel’s back in a gesture of dominance and
authority.
The Newfoundland hails from Canada but can be seen in British painting from the seventeenth
century onwards. The Newfoundland’s popularity was at its climax in England towards the end
of the eighteenth century and beginning of the nineteenth century14 which is reflected in the
proliferation of paintings in which they feature. The artist Edwin Landseer much admired and
painted the breed, which was eventually re-named after him.
Whilst the dog is undoubtedly a Newfoundland, one must be aware that specific breeds were not
clearly defined at this time which accounts for their varying appearance in paintings of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It wasn’t until the formation of the Kennel Club in 1873
that breed standards were set for the first time. Dogs were usually described by their function;
for example, a pointer ‘pointed’ at game for his master and a setter ‘set’ or froze on the spot
allowing the guns to see and shoot their prey. The dog depicted here has historically been
referred to as a spaniel which is not entirely incorrect as any dog with lopped ears could be
referred to as a spaniel as a general description at this time.
The types of dog kept in the eighteenth century can be divided into two groups – high-life dogs
kept by the landed gentry and aristocracy, and low-life, or working dogs. The Newfoundland fits
comfortably into both categories because although it was predominantly used as described
above, it was also a breed kept by many wealthy families. A Landseer Newfoundland with very
similar markings can be seen in Sir Peter Lely’s portrait of Henry Sidney, Earl of Romney c.16801685.
We are grateful to the Kennel Club, Mrs C Matenaar and Mr D Conlan for their advice regarding 18th Century dog
breeds
14 We are grateful to Mrs C Matenaar for her expertise on the Newfoundland breed
13
Cat.12
CHARLES LOUIS CORBET (1758-1808)
Portrait bust of General Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
c.1798
Plaster
33 in. 84 cm high, including integral base.
Provenance
Belgian private collection;
Sold at Horta, Brussels, 9th October 2007, lot 490;
With Philip Mould Ltd, London;
English Private Collection.
Literature
Probably the version recorded in a Brussels private collection in 1960, but unseen by the authors,
in G. Hubert & G. Ledoux-Lebard, ‘Napoleon, Portraits Contemporains, Bustes et Statues’
(1999), p.25
This important plaster bust of Napoleon is one of few portraits of Napoleon made before his
coup d’etat in 1799. In 1798, the sculptor Charles-Louis Corbet was commissioned by the
revolutionary government to portray General Bonaparte from life. This first model was done in
plaster, and exhibited at the Salon in July 1798, with the inscription “…fait d’après nature”.
Napoleon must therefore have sat to Corbet before he departed for his ill-fated Egyptian
campaign later that year.
The image of Napoleon seen here is markedly different from the short-haired, visually plain man
seen as Emperor in, for example, the portraits of Jacques-Louis David. Corbet’s bust, like
Antoine-Jean Gros’ 1801 portrait of Napoleon at the Bridge of the Arcole (Louvre), shows the
young general as a consciously heroic, and even handsome man. The bust not only reflects
Napoleon’s growing popularity in France at the time, after his brilliant victories in Italy, but may
well have played a role in the creation of a personal cult around the future Emperor.
Corbet’s original plaster from the Salon of 1798 is lost. A version was on the Paris art market in
1990 [Hubert & Ledoux-Lebard, p.25]. It must, however, have been a popular image of the
Republic’s favourite general, for five versions of Corbet’s subsequent larger design are thought
to be known, dated between about 1798-1800, and all in plaster. The larger design differs only
from the 1798 plaster in showing Napoleon with a more elaborate tunic. The Conway sculpture
library in the Courtauld Institute in London records just two versions, in the Musée du Versailles
and the Musée Carnavalet, while Gerard Hubert and Guy Ledoux-Lebard’s book on Napoleon’s
contemporary portraits mention three further examples; in the Musée de Malmaison, the Musée
Massena, Nice, and in the Musée de Gand (Ghent), Belgium. Hubert and Ledoux-Lebard claim
that the above examples are signed. However, the version at Malmaison appears to be unsigned,
like the present example. It is possible, given the plaster medium, that the busts were signed by
Corbet on top of the original finish, and not inscribed, as is usually the case with bronze or
terracotta busts. The present bust had been over-painted in the twentieth century with white
household paint, and this could thus have obscured any original signature. It has since been
restored and the finish taken back, where possible, to the original layers. Conservation revealed
that the present bust appears to have been left unpainted and ‘unstopped’ for some time after it
was cast (that is, it effectively remained as an unfinished plaster straight from the casting
process). This may account for the later attempts to ‘finish’ the bust with a layer of white paint.
Corbet’s contemporary plaster busts, of which the present version is thus a sixth example, should
not however be confused with the many later versions, often in bronze, made in the 19th
Century. It is also highly unlikely that the present plaster bust relates to Corbet’s proposal in May
1803 to create a series of 200 plaster busts after his (now lost) marble bust of Napoleon, if
subscriptions could be raised. Corbet’s scheme most probably relates to his portrait of the by
then short-haired Napoleon as First Consul, which he had exhibited in 1802, for it seems
unlikely that the French government would have officially sanctioned a likeness of Napoleon
that was five years out of date. The idea seems not to have been undertaken, for only one
example of Corbet’s bust of Napoleon as First Consul is recorded, in the Palais de Beaux-Arts in
Brussels, and in any case, Napoleon was Emperor by March 1804, and thus in need of an entirely
updated iconography.
Cat.13
FRANZ XAVIER WINTERHALTER (1805 – 1873)
Portrait of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor Napoleon III (1808-1873) and his wife
the Empress Eugenie (1826-1920)
Oil on canvas
Each 39¼ x 28½ in. (99.7cm x 72.4 cm)
Provenance
Private collection, Denmark;
Private collection, Italy.
Exhibited
Ariccia, Palazzo Chigi, Castelli e Castellani, Viaggio attraverso le dimore storiche della Provincia di Roma,
19 July - 20 October 2002, nos. 42 and 43.
Rome, Complesso del Vittoriano, La Campagna Romana dai Bomboccianti alla Scuola Romana, 23
January - 14 February 2010, nos. 70 & 71.
These recently discovered studies of the French Emperor Napoleon III and his wife, Eugenie,
are modellos by Winterhalter for a now lost original pair of portraits painted in the early 1850s. As
such, they would have been commissioned by the Emperor as part of an important plan to
visually embolden the new Bonapartist Empire he established in 1852.
Born in 1808, Napoleon III was son of Louis Bonaparte, the sometime King of Holland, and
thus the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte. The final abdication of his uncle in 1815, following
defeat at Waterloo, ensured that his early years were spent in exile. But a determination to cast
himself as the heir to the French Empire, encouraged after the death in 1832 of Napoleon I’s
only son, the Duke of Reichstadt, led to a number of abortive coup attempts in France, for
which he was variously imprisoned or exiled. The first serious signs of success came after the
revolution of 1848 and the deposition of the ‘Citizen-King’ Louis-Philippe (1773-1850), when
Napoleon returned to France and won election to the new chamber of deputies. He soon
formed a ‘Bonapartist’ party, and won, by a surprise landslide, the election to be the first French
President (of the 2nd Republic). When he was unable to persuade the legislature to extend the
single term period of office beyond four years, Napoleon seized power in a coup, and installed
himself as Emperor. He called himself Napoleon III, thus symbolically recognising his late
cousin, the Duke of Reichstadt, as Napoleon II. Napoleon III’s reign was on the whole a
success, and in terms of foreign policy he did much to re-establish France’s position in Europe,
not least by defeating Russian in alliance with the British during the Crimean War (1854-6). His
Empire was swiftly and calamitously brought to an end, however, when he rashly began a war
with Prussia in 1870. After just a few days, Napoleon himself was captured at Sedan, and forced
to abdicate. He lived the rest of his life modestly in exile in Chislehurst.
Although from the age of eighteen German-born Winterhalter had attracted the attention of
wealthy patrons, it wasn’t until 1841, when he painted Louise Marie of Orleans (1812-1850),
Queen of the Belgians, that he really established his reputation as a leading society portrait
painter. The following year Winterhalter was commissioned by Louis-Philippe to paint his wife
Marie Amelie (1782-1866), Queen of the French, and, having now penetrated the royal court,
was immediately noticed by a number of highly influential nobles from Europe as well as Russia.
It was shortly after this rapid rise to prominence that Queen Victoria (1819-1901) invited
Winterhalter to England, where, in 1842, he painted one of the most defining images of the
young Queen, standing three-quarter length in a white dress, the Queen herself writing in her
journal ‘[…] The likeness is perfect and the picture very fine’.15 Throughout his career
Winterhalter painted over one hundred and twenty portraits of Queen Victoria and her court,
the majority of which are in the Royal Collection.
The establishment of the Second Republic in France of 1848 did little to effect Winterhalter’s
reputation, despite his patronage from the French royal family. After a brief period spent
working in Switzerland, England and Belgium, the artist returned to France where the now
Napoleon III and his wife the Empress Eugenie were in need of portraits to help mark the
beginning of the Second Empire, with the new Imperial family presented in all the official regalia
of their position. Such portrait commissions were offered originally to French painters such as
Alfred de Dreux (1810-60) and Eduard Dubufe (1820-83), however, due to the undeniable
reputation of Winterhalter he too was invited to submit designs. It is thought that the present
reduced scale studies were the two pictures submitted. In the finished pictures, which we know
from contemporary replicas and copies, a far more expansive landscape background is seen,
along with other inclusions such as the Imperial throne. The plain backgrounds seen in the
present studies are instead almost certainly taken directly from the studio set up for Winterhalter
in the Tuileries palace, with its panelled walls. Technical analysis of the pigments used has also
confirmed that the pictures are comparable to other Winterhalter pictures of the early 1850s.
Finally, the boldly and freely painted sketches seen here evidently indicate the artist’s first
portrayal of the Imperial couple in this pose, not least with the evidence of pentimenti (signs of the
artist changing his mind) in, for example, areas around Eugenie’s hand, the Emperor’s crown,
and also his neck. While it has been suggested that the backgrounds were painted by a studio
assistant, this seems highly unlikely; there seems little reason for Winterhalter himself to
complete the large majority of such an important picture himself, and then ask a studio assistant
to add in the background. And nor in fact does the paint surface itself give any indication of
more than one hand at work, as seen in passages such as the penumbra around Napoleon’s head,
which merges seamlessly into the background layer behind it.
The finished, life-size portraits were sadly lost in May 1871 when the Paris Commune, a radical
socialist party, assumed governmental control of the capital and ransacked and burnt the Palais
des Tuileries, in which the completed works hung. Fortunately, numerous copies of varying sizes
and quality were made of the finished full-lengths, which allow for an interesting comparison to
be made with the compositional ideas displayed in the present modellos. Most obviously, the
loosely painted wood panelling seen in the background of the present works has been replaced
by more expansive backdrops in the finished portraits; the Palais des Tuileries is visible beyond a
draped curtain in the portrait of Napoleon III, and the palace garden of Saint-Cloud is thought
to have been depicted beyond the drapes in the portrait of Eugenie.
R. Ormond and C. Blackett-Ord, Franz Xavier Winterhalter and the Courts of Europe 1830-70, Exhibition Catalogue,
National Portrait Gallery, London, 1988, p.190.
15
Cat.14
JOHN FRANCIS (1780-1861)
Portrait bust of John Russell, 1ST Earl Russell (1792-1878), 1848.
White marble
28 1/2 in (72.5 cm) high including base
John Russell's political reforms and leadership of the modern Liberal party make him one of the
most historically significant politicians of the 19th century. This marble bust by the noted
English sculptor John Francis is dated 1848, when Russell was Prime Minister, and at the height
of his powers. It is most likely the example exhibited at the Royal Academy in the same year.
Born into a prominent and wealthy English family, Russell was a younger son of John Russell,
6th Duke of Bedford (1766-1839), and entered the House of Commons in 1813 as a supporter
of the Whigs, the loose political grouping which advocated political and social reform. Russell
was from the outset a supporter of electoral reform and quickly attained a position in the cabinet
of Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey (1764-1845), leading with vigour the attempts to pass the 1832
Reform Act in the House of Commons. Subsequently, Russell became leader of the Whigs in the
Commons, and later in 1846, following the split of the Conservatives and reappointment of the
Whigs, began his first spell as Prime Minister. Russell was the first to adopt the name 'Liberal' to
his coalition of Whigs and Radicals.
Russell’s government faced many challenges, including Ireland, where civil unrest and famine
were at their worst. However he managed to pass a number of highly significant reforming bills
such as the Public Health Act, and restructured others including the English Poor-Law and the
educational system as a whole. A disagreement with Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston over a
militia bill in 1852, ultimately led to Russell's downfall, and following a vote of confidence his
government collapsed in February 1852.
Russell maintained a prominent role in English politics in the years to follow, most notably
during the Crimean War (1853-56), and in 1859 accepted the role of Foreign Secretary in Lord
Palmerston’s government. When Palmerston died suddenly in 1865 Russell took the reins and
became prime minister once again - this time from the House of Lords as Earl Russell - with
William Gladstone leading in the Common’s. However, Russell's second term was short-lived
owing to the failure to pass another electoral reform act which would have further widened the
franchise. In 1866 his government was defeated after Disraeli, the Conservative leader in the
House of Commons, engineered a defeat of Russell''s reform bill.
Cat.15
PAUL DELAROCHE (1797–1856)
Portrait of the Artist’s Son, Joseph-Carle-Paul-Horace Delaroche, 1851
Oil on canvas
24 7/8 by 16 in., (63.2cm x 40.9 cm)
Provenance
Paul Delaroche;
Thence by decent in the Delaroche-Vernet family;
Private Collection, USA.
Exhibited
Paris, Palais des Beaux-Arts, Exposition des oeuvres de Paul Delaroche, 21 April 1857, no.42;
Nantes, Musée des Beaux-Arts; Montpellier, Pavillon du Musée Fabre, Paul Delaroche: un
peintre dans l'histoire, 22nd October 1999 – 23rd April 2000, no. 84.
Literature
J. Goddé, Exposition des oeuvres de Paul Delaroche, exhibition catalogue, cat. no.42,
reproduced plate 56;
N.D. Ziff, Paul Delaroche, A Study of Nineteenth-Century French History Painting, New York
and London 1977, p.299, cat. no. 181, reproduced p. 394, fig. 141
S. Bann, Paul Delaroche, History Painted, Princeton 1997, p. 235-236, repoduced p. 237, fig.
147;
C Cosneau-Allemand and I. Julia, Paul Delaroche: un peintre dans l'histoire, exhibition catalogue,
Nantes 1999, pp.169 and 322 cat. no 84, reproduced.
It is often said that portrait painters are at their best when painting family members or close
friends and the present work, by French painter Paul Delaroche of his eldest son Horace, is no
exception.
Hippolyte Delaroche, (later using his more familiar name Paul) was born in Paris on 17th July
1797 and enrolled at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in 1816, where he studied under the landscape
painter Louis Etienne Watelet (1780-1866). The following year Delaroche left the tutorage of
Watelet and joined the studio of Antoine-Jean Gros (1771-1835), whose large-scale neo-classical
works, based mainly around historical themes, gave young artists like Delaroche the important
opportunity to study from life the human form. After four years Delaroche left Gros’ studio and
in 1822 exhibited at the Paris Salon what is considered to be his first major work ‘Jehoash
rescued by Jeoashbeath’.
It was around this time that Romanticism was beginning to emerge on the Paris art scene with
painters such as Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863) at the forefront, creating highly charged works
such as ‘The Barque of Dante’ (also exhibited at the 1822 Salon) which denounced the classical
style and encouraged a more emotive approach in terms of both style and subject. Delaroche,
observing the benefits of the more established classical style yet also possessing a more avantgarde attitude, soon found a style which straddled both boundaries, cleverly combining historical
events with a striking sense of emotion which the average salon visitor could relate to.
Through the use of engravings Delaroche was able to reach an international audience and some
of his most successful works focussed on British subject matter, most notably ‘The Execution of
Lady Jane Grey’ [1834] which remains to this day one of the most popular works on display in
The National Gallery, London. Other works with British subject matter include his celebrated
(and much copied) ‘The Princes in the Tower’ [1830] ‘‘The Earl of Strafford on his way to
Execution [1835] and ‘Charles I insulted by the soldiers of Cromwell’ [1835].
In 1835 Delaroche married Anne-Elisabeth Louise, daughter of the painter Horace Vernet
(1789-1863) the then professor of the French Academy, and the following year his eldest son
Horace was born. In 1843 Anne-Elisabeth tragically died, a loss which was never fully overcome
by Delaroche, and a situation only to be worsened by the outbreak of cholera in 1849 leaving his
eldest son Horace in very poor health. Thankfully, Horace survived the infection and shortly
after in 1851 was immortalised by Delaroche in the present work, in which he is shown glowing
with vitality and staring out at the viewer with renewed confidence. A subtle, poignant similarity
in the slightly downward, pensive glance can perhaps be drawn with Delaroche’s portrait of his
wife painted 1835 titled ‘Angel’s Head’, painted in the year of their marriage.
This painting, along with a companion portrait of Horace’s younger brother Phillipe, remained in
the possession of the artist until his death in 1856 and the following year was included in a
retrospective exhibition of the artist’s work in Paris.
Cat.16
AUGUSTUS JOHN, RA, OM (1878-1961)
Portrait of Dorelia McNeill, c.1903
Oil on canvas
39 3/8 x 29 3/8 ins. (100cm x 74.7cm)
Provenance
Purchased in Paris (date unknown);
Edgar Hesslein, by descent to:
Mrs Emily Hesslein, whom sold;
Sothebys, London, 20 June 1962, lot.15 (illustrated);
Bt. from above sale by Arthur Tooth, (£2,200);
Private Collection, UK.
Exhibited
The Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, New York, Loan Exhibition, 1922, lent by Edgar
Hesslien;
Scott and Fowles Galleries, New York, Augustus John in American Collections, 21 March – 12 April
1949.
The relationship between Augustus John and Dorelia McNeill is one of the most captivating and
intriguing in the history of British artistic circles and the present work, perhaps John’s first major
portrait of Dorelia in oils, adds a fascinating preface to their already well documented early
history.
In 1901 John married Ida Nettleship whom he had met while they were both students at the
Slade. Just three years later, however, he encountered the enigmatic Dorelia McNeill, whose
charm and mystique captivated John. Never attempting to hide his feelings for Dorelia from Ida,
who in turn understood the part Dorelia played in her husband’s life, Ida invited Dorelia to
move into the family home. John had five children with Ida and with Dorelia a further four, two
being born prior to Ida’s untimely death from fever in Paris in 1907.
Stylistically, the portrait was probably painted c.1903, soon after John first encountered Dorelia
and prior to his portrait of her entitled ‘Ardor’ [Manchester City Art Gallery] painted 1904 and
comparable in style to Frans Hals (c.1582-1666). A further interesting comparison of John’s style
at this time can be made with his portrait of Ida entitled ‘Merikli’ [Manchester City Art Gallery]
which was voted Picture of the Year at the Winter Exhibition at the New English Art Club in
1902. In both paintings we see John using a traditional palette and positioning his sitters contraposto against a dark background holding wild flowers. The combined effect recalls Rembrandt’s
portrait work as seen for example in ‘Woman with a Pink’ painted in the 1660s [Metropolitan
Museum of Art].
The present work was purchased in Paris from an unknown source by Edgar Hesslein, brotherin-law of Sir William Rothenstein who married the artist’s elder sister Emily Rothenstein (b.1869)
in 1900. William was clearly a huge enthusiast of John’s work; Holroyd describing how ‘his
admiration for Augustus’s work was tireless’16 and how, in these early days, Augustus depended
16
M. Holroyd, Augustus John; Vol.1, The Years of Innocence, London, 1974, p.84.
on Rothenstein to show and sell his work to a number of wealthy contemporaries and patrons.17
It is therefore with little doubt that the sale of this work was also encouraged, perhaps even
brokered, by Rothenstein to his brother-in-law Hesslein, a wealthy textiles merchant in the USA.
Hesslein owned a number of works by John, including another early portrait of Dorelia in chalks
[Christies, 5 June 2007, lot.107], which, along with the present work, was loaned to Brooklyn in
1922 and later to Scott and Fowles Gallery, New York. Following Hesslein’s death the portrait,
along with a large collection of works by John and his contemporaries, passed into the
ownership of his wife Emily, who subsequently sold the collection through Sotheby’s in 1962
where the portrait was bought by the dealer Arthur Tooth, and later sold to a private collector.
We would like to thank Rebecca John for her assistance when researching this work.
17
M. Holroyd, Augustus John; Vol.1, The Years of Innocence, London, 1974, p.84.
Cat.17
WILFRED GABRIEL DE GLEHN (1870-1951)
Portrait of Jane Austen in Beige, Autumn
Oil on canvas
36 x 24 inches (91.4cm x 61cm)
Provenance
Spanierman Gallery, New York.
Wilfred Gabriel de Glehn is regarded as one of the most important British Impressionist painters
working in late nineteenth/early twentieth century England.
Wilfred Gabriel von Glehn was born in South London to a father of Baltic descent (changing his
name during the First World War to the more anglicised ‘De Glehn’) and was educated at
Brighton College. During the early 1890s de Glehn went to Paris where he studied at the Ecole
des Beaux-Arts under the symbolist painter Gustave Moreau (1826-98) whilst witnessing firsthand the evolving avant-garde impressionist movement. During these years de Glehn befriended
artists such as Edwin Austin Abbey (1852-1911) and John Singer Sargent (1856-1925), assisting
them with the series of murals commissioned by Boston Public Library which were completed in
1895. De Glehn and Sargent remained life-long friends and frequently travelled together on
painting expeditions around the continent, immortalised, rather touchingly, in Sargents painting
of de Glehn with his wife painting titled The Fountain, Villa Torlonia, 1907 [The Art Institute of
Chicago, Illinois].
After spending six years training in Paris, de Glehn returned to England, taking lodgings in St
Leonard’s Studios in Chelsea, and exhibiting his first portrait Mona at the Royal Academy in
1896. Although not all the critics reacted well to de Glehn’s initial attempts at portraiture – one
reporter for The Times claiming them to be ‘…to summary and chic’ – he pursued this course with
vigour. By the thirties, when the present work was painted, de Glehn’s style was elegant yet fastpaced and, as with all his works, display a preoccupation with the effects of light as exemplified
here.
The colour beige was highly popular during the 1930s and was broadly adopted by the House of
Chanel as their signature shade. A study of Vogue Magazine during this period reveals a strong
demand for beige clothing as well as this style of coat, tied at the front in a knot and known,
when produced in fur, as a ‘Swagger Coat’. The intended prominence of the colour by the artist
is reinforced through an inscription on the reverse which reads; ‘Jane Austen/ in beige + Hat’. Any
further clues to the sitter’s identity are difficult to glean but she appears to have modelled for de
Glehn numerous times, most notably for his 1934 Royal Academy exhibit in which Jane is
shown full-length wearing a long-sleeved magenta velvet gown.
Cat.18
SIR GERALD KELLY KCVO PRA (1879-1972)
Portrait of Jane, the artist’s wife
Oil on Canvas
45 x 35 in (114.3 x 88.9 cm)
Provenance
The artist, whom bequeathed to;
John Napper;
Private Collection, UK.
Kelly began his career without any formal art training, but, exhibiting the indefatigable
determination that became a hallmark of his character, he moved for Paris in 1901 in his quest to
become a painter. There he made friends with the greats such as John Singer Sargent and Walter
Sickert, and spent a number of years studying both Old Masters and the Impressionists, such as
Monet, Renoir and Degas, all of whom he met.
Kelly’s first artistic breakthrough came when the great contemporary collector Sir Hugh Lane
purchased two of his paintings in 1908. Soon afterwards, Kelly joined or was elected to the
necessary artistic institutions; Royal Hibernian Academy in 1908, the National Portrait Society in
1910, and the Royal Academy in 1930. By the outbreak of World War One, Kelly was an
established portraitist, and continued to attract significant sitters throughout his career. Over the
course of his career he painted; T.S. Eliot, Henry Frick, Harold MacMillan, Vaughan Williams,
and, between 1939 and 1945, the Coronation Portraits of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.
He was elected President of the Royal Academy in 1949.
In 1920 Kelly married working-class model Lilian Ryan (always referring to her as ‘Jane’) and she
became the subject of some of Kelly’s most sensitive and striking portraits. Jane, who was also
great friends with Sir George Clausen, sat for over fifty works by Kelly, each exhibited likeness
being numbered with a roman numeral – one of his finest perhaps being his portrait ‘Jane XXX’
[Royal Academy, London], in which she is shown in profile with a fur-trimmed blue cloak.
Another portrait of Jane, in which she is also seated with her head in in profile, was exhibited at
the Royal Academy in 1927 and bears a striking resemblance to the present work, albeit without
the jewelry and wearing more formal attire. So well-known were Kelly’s portraits of his wife, that
Queen Mary, after being introduced to Jane, famously exclaimed; ‘Jane, of the many Janes!’
It remains unclear why the present work was never finished, although its incomplete nature
allows an interesting view into his method of painting, and one immediately notices Kelly’s
preference for working alla prima, without the use of any detailed preliminary design, instead just
a few broad, sweeping strokes.
One of the main focal points within the portrait is the jewelry, which is a celebrated masterpiece
in its own right. The jewelry set was commissioned from Carlo Giuliano (1831-95) by Phillips
Brothers of London c.1863-74, and takes inspiration from Hellenistic jewels of the third century
B.C.18
We are grateful to Geoffrey Munn OBE of Wartski for his assistance is cataloguing this work.
18
G. Munn, Castellani and Giuliano: Revivalist Jewellers of the Nineteenth Century, London, 1984. Pg. 76,
pl.77.
Cat.19
DUNCAN GRANT (1885-1978)
Leda and Zeus, 1933
Oil, watercolour and charcoal on canvas
Signed with initials and dated 1933
27 ½ x 36 ½ in. (69.8cm x 92.7cm)
Provenance
Richard Philp Gallery, Grosvenor House, 2008.
Private Collection, UK.
The turn of the twentieth century witnessed an over-haul in British art with the more rigid
formalities of the academic Victorian age giving way to an increasingly liberal and gestural
approach. From this epoch of change emerged a number of young artists who would challenge
convention and help carve the exhilarating identity of modern British art. This exceptional work
by Duncan Grant epitomises the freshness and dynamism of which they were capable.
One of the most influential protagonists of this period was the Bloomsbury Group – a set of
upper middle-class artists, writers and thinkers whose collaborative inter-disciplinary influence
was central to artistic developments in the first half of the twentieth century. Members of the
group included amongst others; art critic Roger Fry, economist John Maynard Keynes, writer
Virginia Woolf and biographer (and cousin of Grant) Lytton Strachey.
In 1913 Fry founded the Omega Workshops and invited Duncan Grant and Vanessa Bell to play
central roles as creative directors. The aim of the workshop was break the barrier between the
fine and decorative arts and to amalgamate the expressive graphic designs of the Bloomsbury
Group with less established art forms including stained glass, furniture, textiles and painted
murals.
Despite Grant’s sexual inclination towards men (he was at one point a lover of his cousin Lytton
Strachey), an intimate relationship began to develop between Grant and Bell which would
ultimately last their lifetime. Their support and encouragement of each other’s work also led to a
number of collaborations, most notably on the series of murals for John Maynard Keynes’
rooms at King’s College, Cambridge, finished in 1922.19
Grant’s popularity rapidly rose during the inter-war years, helped in part by his involvement as a
costume and set designer for a number of popular performances including The Enchanted Grove
and the ballet Swan Lake. It was during the late 1920s and 30s that Grant began to explore
darker, more sensual classical themes in his work, drawing influence in particular from Greek
mythology, as seen in the present work. The subject we see here is taken from the Greek myth of
Leda and the Swan. Zeus, who was in love with Leda, the wife of Tyndareus, king of Sparta,
19
The collaborative studies for the murals are currently in the private collection of Philip Mould
came to her beside a river in the disguise of a swan and seduced her. Leda then laid two eggs
from which emerged the twins Castor and Pollux and Helen of Troy and Clytemnestra.
Although this theme has been explored at length by generations of previous artists from
Leonardo da Vinci through to Paul Cezanne, Grant has approached the theme differently by
refraining to present Leda as an object of lust and beauty. Instead Grant has interweaved the
two forms together and achieved dynamicity and tension through a more gestural display of
technique, using a combination of oils, watercolours and charcoals and demonstrating a mastery
of post impressionistic technique pioneered on the continent.