Kitabı oku: «Chats on Old Miniatures», sayfa 3
There is a large, though not particularly attractive, example of Boit's to be seen in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford; but specimens of his art are not very common, and are not nearly so often met with as those by C. F. Zincke, whose spick-and-span style and bright blue draperies are well known; Oxford is rich in them.
This Dresden miniature painter, whose features are familiar to print collectors from the mezzotint of him and his wife by Faber, came to England in 1706 and obtained the patronage of George II., although that uninteresting monarch hated "boetry and bainting." Zincke's work is, indeed, typically early Georgian, and repeats the insipidities of Kneller on a small scale, with a persistent consistency which is monotonous in the extreme. Horace Walpole had a high opinion of his work; he declared that it surpassed that of Boit and rivalled Petitot, an opinion which few who know the merits of Petitot's exquisite art are likely to endorse.
Failure of eyesight led Zincke to retire in 1746; but he lived some twenty years longer. During the forty years that he practised his art he must have executed an enormous number of portraits, for he was the fashionable artist of his day, and so great was the patronage bestowed upon him that he raised his prices to limit the number of his patrons.
A pupil of Zincke's was William Prewitt, who is not, I think, very well known. There is an example by him to be seen in the Victoria and Albert Museum, a body-colour drawing. The Duke of Buccleuch has a portrait of Horace Walpole when young, also painted by Prewitt.
Another miniaturist who was especially an enameller was Charles Muss, said by some to be an Italian, and by others to have been born at Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1779. He was enamel painter to George III. and George IV.; and devoted himself especially to copying old masters. Examples of his work in this direction will be found in the Plumley Collection in the Victoria and Albert Museum.
A much better-known enameller is Nathaniel Hone, an Irishman of a self-assertive, not to say aggressive, personality, if one may judge by the tone of his remarks when he quarrelled with the Academy, of which he was a full member, over his picture called "The Conjurer." This indifferent painting excited an amount of attention of which it was quite undeserving from the tongue of scandal, which asserted that Sir Joshua Reynolds and Angelica Kauffmann were satirised in the composition, and that one of the naked figures dancing in the background was intended for the fair Academician.
Hone essayed the various branches of art with varying success. There is a characteristic portrait of himself in the Diploma collection of the Royal Academy. He, too, had a share of Royal patronage, and painted many of the notabilities of his day, including the lovely Misses Gunning. He had a son, Horace Hone, who was made an Associate of the Academy, and who also practised as a miniature painter. His work is considered inferior to that of his father.
John Plott, another miniaturist, was also a pupil of the elder Hone, and was born at Winchester, where he studied law. Forsaking that pursuit, he came to London, and was at first a pupil of Richard Wilson R.A.
Two other Academicians associated with this period, and both enamellers of exceptional ability, are George Michael Moser and Jeremiah Meyer. Moser was the son of a sculptor, and was born at St. Galle, in 1704. Upon his arrival in this country he found employment with the Royal Family, and, being a fine medallist, was commissioned to design the King's Great Seal. No doubt he had social gifts, and he certainly enjoyed the respect and friendship of Sir Joshua Reynolds. He was one of the most active founders of the Royal Academy, and was made its first Keeper.
His only child, Mary Moser, was a flower painter of great reputation in her day. She married a Captain Lloyd, but is reported to have gone about the country in the company of Richard Cosway, who at the beginning of the century was separated from his wife, Maria. This Mary Moser, by the way, was a lady Royal Academician, like the fair Angelica Kauffmann.
Jeremiah Meyer, the other enameller whom I have mentioned, was also a foundation member of the Royal Academy; he was, moreover, a very fine miniature painter. Great refinement of colour, excellent drawing, perfect finish, and, what is perhaps more rare in miniature work, truth to life, distinguish his miniatures. He came to London when he was fourteen, and was a pupil of Zincke for two years. Fifteen years later, when only twenty-nine, he was made enameller to George III. He was a constant exhibitor at the Academy, where he showed some twenty pieces. He was born at Tubingen, in 1735, and died in 1789, some three years before Sir Joshua Reynolds, whose work is said greatly to have influenced his style.
The palette of the enamel painter is a very rich one, but not all the colours to be found amongst the metallic oxides fuse at the same temperature. Hence the artist must be able to judge most accurately the length of time that each will stand the heat without melting too much and running one into the other. Such acquaintance can only be acquired by pains-taking practice, and it is obvious how greatly the difficulties of portraiture are enhanced under such conditions. It is usual to place these opaque colours upon the enamel ground, on a gold or copper plate, applying the hardest vitrifiable colour first, then the less hard, and so on. It is perhaps not surprising that so delicate a process, liable to be attended by failure at every step, has fallen out of fashion in these days, and as a matter of fact it is now scarcely attempted in this country at all – that is to say, in the way of portraiture.
Formerly, however, it was carried on here with more or less success, and one interesting practice of the art may be named before we leave this part of our subject. I refer to what are known as the Battersea enamels. In the middle of the eighteenth century, under the management of S. J. Jansen, many articles, such as candlesticks, patch-boxes and snuff-boxes, and such like, were produced. These are fairly well drawn and coloured, and consist largely of flowers, birds and fruit, and so forth, generally on a white ground. But beside all these there are a number of contemporary portraits, produced by means of transfers from copper plates. Amongst these are the beautiful Misses Gunning, the Royal Family of the day, Gibbon, and many others. Some may be seen in the Franks Collection at the British Museum, and a more important collection is at the Victoria and Albert, brought together by the late Lady Charlotte Schreiber.
To a somewhat later period than that we have been discussing belongs Henry Bone, R.A., who, like so many other artists, came from the West of England, having been born at Truro, in 1755. The circumstances of his early life doubtless somewhat affected the direction which his artistic efforts took, he having been apprenticed in a china manufactory at Plymouth. He removed with it to Bristol in 1778, and, coming to London, was employed in painting devices in enamel on trinkets. He first attracted attention in London by an enamel of the "Sleeping Girl," after Sir Joshua Reynolds, which was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1780. This led to his being appointed enamel painter to Royalty, and George, Prince of Wales, extended his patronage to him. Academical honours followed; he was made an Associate in 1801, and full member ten years later.
Bone stands out as the enameller par excellence of the English school; and he was astonishingly successful in many large and ambitious pieces. For example, he was paid two thousand guineas for a plaque measuring 18 by 15 inches, a copy of Titian's "Bacchus and Ariadne," in the National Gallery. He devoted himself especially to copying the works of the great masters, such as Raphael, Titian, and Murillo. He also executed a series of 85 copies of portraits of the statesmen and others who lived in "the spacious days of great Elizabeth." But whilst a large measure of success may be ungrudgingly accorded him in respect of these works, the flesh tones in his painting often leave something to be desired; there is a suggestion of painting on porcelain, and of the smoothness and want of vitality that characterise that kind of work, and are so fatal to its artistic completeness. It would be a little curious to trace this tendency to what may be termed ceramic smoothness to the early training of Bone as a china-painter. At any rate, it may be recognised as characteristic of his style.
His son, Henry Pierce Bone, followed his father's footsteps in painting a great number of copies from the old masters. The elder Bone died in 1834, the younger lived some twenty years longer. Besides these two, there was a P. J. Bone, who exhibited an enamel at the Royal Academy in 1801; and there were also two other Bones, whose names appear in the catalogues, namely, W. Bone and C. R. Bone. They were the grandsons of Henry, and exhibited up to 1851, the latter alone contributing 67 miniatures to the Academy.
The last enamellers that I would mention are the Essexes, William and William B. The former was born in 1784, and died at Brighton, in 1869. In his long life he exhibited a large number of works at the Royal Academy, mostly portraits, H.M. the late Queen Victoria giving him much employment, and appointing him her enamel painter in 1839. Although most of his works exhibited at the Academy from 1818 until within five years of his death were portraits, or copies of paintings by the old masters, animal painting was really his forte, as may be seen by an examination of his work at the Victoria and Albert Museum.
His son, W. B. Essex, died in Birmingham, in 1852, at the early age of twenty-nine, having contributed to the Academy from 1845 to 1851 some ten or twelve portraits.
In concluding these remarks upon enamel painting, one cannot help feeling a certain regret that the art, as applied to portraiture, I mean, should have fallen into such desuetude in these days. When one considers the beautiful effects which have been produced in it by the hands of masters, and especially the valuable quality of permanence which such works possess (for an enamel by Petitot is as brilliant to-day as it was when it was fired), one must wish that artists would devote themselves to so satisfactory a record of contemporary portraiture. Miniature painting upon ivory, charming as it is in its delicate effects, is, as we all know, subject to the great defect of being fleeting in its nature, when exposed to light. Not only has the charm and beauty of many a miniature by Cosway vanished utterly, but a green and ghastly caricature is left in its place, a travesty and a libel upon the original.
The amount of time and patience requisite to produce an enamel is, no doubt, the secret of the neglect into which it has fallen in these days. The tendency to haste and to hurry, with its concomitant, cheapness of production, is, we are told, ruining the art of such conservative craftsmen as those of China, of Japan, and of India; and if these Western tendencies have made their influence felt in the Far East, it is not to be wondered at that in England of to-day a portrait in enamels is a thing which demands too much labour and time to be in the vogue. True it is that it was never extensively practised here; but now it may be said, as far as regards portraiture, to be practically extinct.
CHAPTER IV
EARLY PORTRAIT PAINTERS
Horace Walpole has asserted that this country has very rarely given birth to a genius in painting. "Flanders and Holland," says he, "have sent us the greatest men that we can boast." The following list of portrait painters who are reputed to have practised in England during the Tudor and Stuart periods contains, it will be seen at once, a very large proportion of foreign names: —
1So called in the Royal Acad. Winter Exhibition Catalogues.
As this book makes no claim to be regarded as a biographical dictionary, and as I have given such particulars as I have been able to ascertain about the whole of the above named in my larger works, I do not propose to deal with those mentioned in this list seriatim, but I shall devote chapters to the most important of them, such men as Samuel Cooper, Hilliard, Hoskins, Holbein, the Olivers, and Petitot.
As to many of the others, I give their names for the sake of being comprehensive but with reservations. Take, for example, Lucas de Heere. It may be allowed that he worked in England, and there is a very good oil painting by him in the Palace of Holyrood House, of a lady of the Tudor period, miscalled Mary, Queen of Scots. But I should not like to undertake to produce any evidence that he painted miniatures, in spite of the fact of one of Sir John B. Hatton and his mother being shown at Kensington in 1865, and attributed to him.
This work belongs to Earl Spencer. It is dated 1525, and signed "L." Now, the date assigned to the birth of the artist is 1534. In other words, this group, which comes from a great and justly celebrated collection, namely, Althorp, and was shown under such auspices at that great exhibition of miniatures to which I have so often referred – I say, in spite of all this, a picture is actually catalogued as being by an artist who did not come into existence till nine years after the date which the panel actually bears.
The connection of many of the others with miniature painting is decidedly slight, yet, as need hardly be said, there are contemporary references to them which entitle them to a mention in this list. Thus Lanzi has recorded that Lucca Penni and Giralamo Da Trevigi were employed here. Then there was a lady miniature painter, a daughter of Master Simon Bennink of Bruges, who was employed by the Court of England. Thus we know that in 1547 "Maistris Levyn Teerling, Paintrix," was paid quarterly £11, and we read of her presenting Queen Mary with a small miniature of the Trinity as a New Year's gift. Again in 1558 she presents her Majesty Elizabeth with the "Queen's picture finely painted on a card," and received in return "one casting bottell guilt," weighing two and three-quarter ounces. And in 1561 she presents "the Queen's personne and other personages in a box, finely painted." "One guilt salt with a cover," weighing five and a quarter ounces, was the return made for this.
Then there was the Horneband, Hornebonde, or Hornebolt family, of whom some interesting particulars will be found in "Archæologia," contributed by Mr. Nichols.
The best known of these appears to be Susannah, whose father was in the service of King Henry VIII. at a monthly pay of 33s. 4d. Her brother Lucas, was even better paid, namely 55s. 6d. per month, a sum which was more, it is interesting to note, than Hans Holbein received.
In April, 1554, the household books of Henry show that the painter was duly paid his salary. In the following month there occurs this entry, "Item for Lewke Hornebonde, Paynter, Wages nil, Quia Mortuus."
Albert Dürer has told us of his meeting members of this family at Antwerp in 1521. He was impressed with the ability of Susannah, who was then about eighteen years old, and he records how he gave her a florin, for she had made a coloured drawing of our Saviour, of which he says, "It is wonderful that a female should be able to do such a work."
He abused More (who was here at the time painting a portrait of Queen Mary by command of Philip) with whom he afterwards returned to Spain, telling him (More) to go back to Utrecht, and keep his wife from the Canons. The unfortunate Van Cleef is said to have painted his own clothes and spoilt his own pictures, and he behaved in such a way that it was necessary to confine him.
There is a portrait of Henry VIII. at Hampton Court ascribed by some to this painter, and the mention of this monarch reminds me of John and Thomas Betts, brothers as is supposed, the former of whom painted Edmund Butts, son of the King's physician. This portrait, in the black cap and furred gown of the period, is to be seen in the National Gallery, and came from the collection of the late George Richmond, R.A. It is a vigorous, soundly painted work, recalling Holbein in manner, as may be seen, I think, by the illustration shown on p. 77, though markedly inferior in subtlety of rendering of character to that great master.
It has been customary to term John Betts a pupil of Nicholas Hilliard, but this portrait is conclusive evidence on that point, for it is dated in the clearest manner 1545. Now, as Hilliard was not born till two years later, it is sufficiently obvious that John Betts could not have been his pupil.
In the case of these early English artists, John being supposed to have died in 1570, any information which can be given is of interest. Apart from particulars which may be gleaned from biographical dictionaries, it is worth mentioning that at the Winter Exhibition of the Royal Academy in 1879 the Duke of Buccleuch exhibited a miniature of Catherine de Balzac, Duchess of Lennox (wife of Esmé Stuart, created Duke of Lennox by James VI.), and another of Queen Elizabeth, both ascribed to John Betts. At the same exhibition there was a miniature of Thomas Egerton, Lord Ellesmere (Lord Chancellor, 1603), also lent by the Duke of Buccleuch, and Dr. Propert had a miniature of J. Digby, Earl of Bristol, which he ascribed to Thomas Betts.
Thomas and John Betts are mentioned in Mere's "Wit's Commonwealth," published in London, 1598, together with other artists whose names are hardly known and whose works are absolutely unknown. The painters in question were mentioned in the introduction to the catalogue of the Kensington Loan Collection of 1865, but not a single example of their work was forthcoming. Confusion reigns as to their date, and beyond the fact that Vertue mentions a miniature by John Betts of Sir John Godsalve, who was controller of the Mint to Edward VI., and that in Hall's Chronicle of the year 1576 (for which he engraved some vignettes) he is termed a designer, and said to have been a pupil of Hilliard's, but little is recorded of him.
With the exception of Holbein, and perhaps Petitot, the most important name in connection with our subject, in the list of foreigners which I have given at the commencement of this chapter, is François Clouet or Janet. I shall devote a separate chapter to the latter.
Not least amongst the treasures of the unique collection of miniatures in the Royal Library in Windsor Castle is a small one of Mary Queen of Scots. As I have described this fully in my remarks upon the Royal collection, I shall only now say that it was catalogued for King Charles I. as "supposed to be done by Jennet, a French limner." This name, which is spelt nowadays Janet, is that of a family whose interesting history is given in some detail in Mrs. Mark Pattison's "History of the Renaissance." It is not a little difficult to distinguish between the various members of this family, the Clouets, as they were also called; and we need not stop to deal with the story now, as I have referred to the subject in my remarks on French art (see Chapter XIV.), but there is no doubt that François was Court painter in the reigns of Henry II. and III., of Francis II. and Charles IX. of France, and that his work belongs to the period with which we are now dealing. Judged by the standard of his own day, this artist attained a high level of excellence, but if we are to judge of the merits of his work rightly, we must discriminate between his finished pictures and his studies for portraits. Now, these latter, some of which were hardly more than memoranda in black and red chalk, were very fashionable in Janet's day, and there is no doubt immense numbers of them were produced. Great personages of the day owned portfolios of them, which in a sense were the precursors of the photographic albums of our own time.
Of Janet's work I can only mention a few examples here. Amongst them is, at Chantilly, a notable one of Mary Queen of Scots, as she was when nine years old, giving, it must be owned, but slender promise of the physical beauty which afterwards she was allowed to possess by foes and friends alike.
Equally interesting, of greater technical merit, and indeed of supreme importance in their way, are the three superb portraits in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, of Mary Queen of Scots as Dauphine, of her first husband, Francis II., and of herself in the white Court mourning or deuil blanc which she wore as widow of the last named.1 Did only these three works exist, they would be quite sufficient to stamp Janet as an admirable artist, perhaps second only to Holbein in his way and in his time: I say second, because nothing of Janet's, so far as I know, has ever reached the high level, the searching execution, the power of draughtsmanship, and the masterly style of Hans Holbein. It is with that great artist, who may be considered as the founder of miniature painting in this country, that we have now to deal.
Every tyro in art knows, it may be said, the eminence of Hans Holbein the Younger as a painter, and especially as a portrait painter. He had other gifts as well, to which we shall refer by and by, but perhaps all my readers may not be aware that Holbein must be regarded as the actual founder of the art of miniature painting in England.
As Hans Holbein came to London in 1526 it will be seen that the art of limning has, in this country, a genealogy, so to speak, of nearly four hundred years. And during all that long period, and amidst the great number of artists who worked therein, there is no greater name to be found than that of the Augsburg painter. It is to Erasmus that he owed his introduction to this country, which he visited for the first time when he was about thirty-two years of age. The painter's acquaintance with Erasmus was made at Basle, where, by the way, in the Salle des Dessins, one of the best portraits of Holbein is to be found – a drawing in body colour on vellum, beautifully finished, which I here reproduce. Sir Thomas More was a friend of Erasmus, and it was to the house of this distinguished man that Holbein went on his arrival. There he remained some time, painting portraits of eminent men with whom he must have come in contact at Chelsea, amongst others – Archbishop Warham, Sir Henry Guildford, Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, Sir Thomas More himself, and two generations of the More family.
After a while he returned to Switzerland, and when he revisited this country in 1531 his friend had become Lord Chancellor. We need not attempt to follow his career here in detail; there is no doubt that he soon was taken into the service of Henry VIII., and, becoming a favourite of that monarch, was attached to the Royal household, and appears to have had apartments in the palace at Whitehall. In 1538 he is spoken of as "a sarvand of the Kynges Majesties named Mr. Haunce." At this time his salary was £30 per annum, as to which the relative value of money, then and now, must not be forgotten. In this year he was at Brussels with Sir Philip Hobby, having a commission to paint the portrait of the young widowed Duchess of Milan. It is a magnificent full-length portrait, one of his finest works, and may be seen in the National Gallery to-day, having been lent by the Duke of Norfolk. This demure-looking lady may be credited with having a pretty wit of her own, if the story told of her reception of an offer of marriage by Henry VIII. be true; the answer she made to these overtures was that she must beg to be excused as she was possessed of but one neck.
The collection of pictures and drawings for pictures attributed to Holbein, and now preserved at Windsor, is well known and justly celebrated. But it is with the miniatures which are supposed to be his work that we have most to do in this book. It is somewhat remarkable that so great an authority as the late Mr. Ralph Wornum must be allowed to be should dispute the fact of Holbein having ever painted any miniatures at all. In his "Life and Works of Holbein" he distinctly asserts that there is not a single miniature in existence which can be positively assigned to Holbein.
The learned late Keeper of the National Gallery would probably not have disputed that Holbein did paint miniatures, in the face of Van Mander's explicit statement that "he [Holbein] worked equally well in oil and in water-colours; he painted also miniatures of a special excellence, which last art he learned from one Master Lucas, then in London, whom, however, he soon surpassed." Then we have the testimony of Sandrart, who says: "Holbein began practising the art when in the King's service, having been incited thereto by the excellence of the works of Master Lucas." There is no question, either, that Van der Doort regarded Holbein as a limner; in his catalogue of King Charles I.'s collection he speaks of two miniatures of Henry VIII. which he ascribes to Holbein. But Mr. Wornum says of these that it is next to impossible to identify them now. Then there is the express statement of Nicholas Hilliard, who declares himself as the pupil of Holbein in the art of limning.
Finally, in the Bodleian Library is a manuscript by Edward Morgate, dedicated to Henry Frederick, Earl of Arundel, dated July 8, 1654, entitled "Miniatura, or the Art of Limning," in which it is stated that "the incomparable Holbein, in all his different and various methods of painting, either in oyle, distemper, lymning, or crayon, was, it seems, so general an artist as never to imitate any man, nor ever was worthily imitated by any."
These I have also described in Chapter XII., under "The Royal Collection," for opportunities of examining which I may express my obligation to the courtesy of the late librarian, Sir Richard Holmes. The picture of a burgomaster (given on p. 85), is one which has been assigned to Holbein, and it is also at Windsor.
Another of Henry's wives, whose portrait is ascribed to Holbein, and was, we have reason to believe, in the Royal Collection at one time, is Katherine of Arragon. Walpole says of this portrait: "It was given to the Duke of Monmouth by Charles II. I bought it at the sale of Lady Isabella Scott, daughter of the Duchess of Monmouth." When the famous Colworth Collection was dispersed, a piece, purporting to be this particular miniature, painted on vellum, was sold. It is reproduced on p. 91. Its then owner, Mr. Magniac, sent it to the South Kensington Exhibition of 1865, believing it, no doubt, to be as described in the catalogue. But had he referred to the "Anecdotes of Painting" he would have found that Walpole's description of it could not apply to this particular work, seeing that it was on a round, and on a blue ground. In the Strawberry Hill sale catalogue it is described as a "very fine specimen of the master," and was purchased by W. Blamire, Esq., for the sum of £50 8s.
A curious picture of a natural son of Henry VIII., by Lady Elizabeth Talboys, was ascribed to Holbein in the Strawberry Hill Collection. It was sold to the Duke of Buckingham for seven and a half guineas, and bears the following inscription: "Henry Duck off Richmond, ætatis sue XVo." It is painted on an ace of hearts, and was formerly in the collection of Mr. Sackville Bale, who enjoyed the reputation of being a connoisseur of good judgment. This young man, it may be mentioned, who appears to be painted in his nightdress and a most unbecoming nightcap, did not live to be eighteen years of age.
There is an interesting portrait of Holbein himself to be seen at Hertford House. As Mr. Claude Phillips, the keeper of the Wallace Collection, accepts this as Holbein's work, I shall not stop to discuss its authenticity, but I may remark that there is a duplicate of this particular subject at Montagu House. The Wallace example is in oils on card, whilst the Duke of Buccleuch's piece is in gouache, I believe, on card. The view of the face, the position of the hands, and all the details, except the length of the hair, appear identical. As to the hair, it is certainly longer in the Wallace Collection portrait. This latter piece may be thus described. Head and bust of a middle-aged man, wearing black dress and cap, with a lace open collar, holding a pencil in his right hand and looking at spectator, with whiskers and a short beard, dark in colour and rather sparse. Blue background, circular, about one and a half inches in diameter. It is inscribed "1543. Ætatis suæ 45."
