Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

THE OXFORD EXHIBITION OF HISTORICAL PORTRAITS

BY THE REV. HERBERT E. D. BLAKISTON, B.D.

NE hundred and fifty years ago Horace Walpole, the first serious student of historical portraiture in England, visited the Bodleian, and saw 'quantities of portraits, in general not so much as copies, but proxiesso utterly unlike are they to the persons they pretend to represent.' On his second visit his attention was confined to the colleges. 'In an old buttery in Christ Church I discovered two of the most glorious portraits by Holbein in the world; they call them Dutch heads. I took them down, washed them, and fetched out a thousand beauties."

Among recent exhibitions which would have appealed to Walpole's tastes, probably none has done more good than the Tudor exhibition of 1890, at which several Oxford pictures aroused considerable attention. The present collection of 137 is much smaller, since, with the exception of the contributions from Ditchley and Kirtlington and a few other items, it is confined to the more authentic pictures in the possession of the colleges, the cathedral chapter, the Bodleian, and the University Galleries; but it is in some ways as important as the Tudor exhibition. The period covered includes the reign of James I, and even a few persons who died after 1625. The historical interest is remarkably varied; and the scientific value of this exhibition is great, since care has been taken to arrange portraits of the same personages in juxtaposition. The whole scheme, which originated with Dr. H. G. Woods, ex-president of Trinity, the provost of Queen's, and a few other experts, has been finally carried out by an influential committee under the chairmanship of the president of Magdalen, and with the assistance of Mr. C. F. Bell, of the Ashmolean Museum, as honorary secretary. Mr. Bell is responsible for the historical and descriptive catalogue, to which Mr. Lionel Cust contributes a short preface, and which is adorned with a photogravure-the fine unpublished portrait of Queen Elizabeth in the possession of Jesus College. The pictures are hung advantageously, and will remain on view till May 26. The richness of Oxford in works of the earlier periods must make the exhibition a notable event in the study of historical portraiture in England.

The first impression produced on the visitor who has some acquaintance with Oxford pictures will be that of surprise. The collections in the lodgings of heads and other officials can seldom be viewed at leisure; but they are the original repositories of the earlier pictures, and have suffered less from the amateur restorer. Then again the modern methods of cleaning which have been applied lately by some colleges, and are now being tried on an extensive (and expensive) scale by the Bodleian curators,

[ocr errors]

have fetched out a thousand beauties' in a legitimate way. A few of the pictures representing the most famous people-the supposed Zuccaro of Queen Elizabeth, and the Frobisher signed by Cornelius Ketel-have been seen in London; but many portraits equally good or even better as works of art have never been exhibited at all. Again, many of the best-known pictures in Oxford, such as King Alfred and the Black Prince, John de Balliol and Dervorguilla his wife, and the earlier Bishops, are conspicuous by their absence, since they are acknowledged to be 'proxies,' having been in fact painted from models-an athletic blacksmith' or 'an apothecary's daughter '-by such artists as Willem Sonman, who produced inter alia the series of founders for the decoration of the Bodleian library. Occasionally, of course, these late pictures are not purely imaginary; Queen Philippa is adapted from the monument in Westminster Abbey, which is not entirely conventional; and the earliest William of Wykeham may be based on the effigy in his beautiful chantry. But it cannot be too often repeated that there was no such thing as a professional portraitpainter, or a portrait properly so called, in England before the sixteenth century; the earliest pictures, such as the Richard II at Westminster, are but the exceptions which prove this rule.

Thus, the only panel here which can be before 1500 is the unattractive Queen Elizabeth Woodville (No. 8). It is similar in style, though much inferior in execution, to the Chapter-house Henry VII (No. 9) which is of the earliest Tudor type; but the form of the inscription on the former suggests the possibility of an earlier date than usual. Similarly, the Edward III (No. 1) and the Henry V (No. 4), lent by Queen's College, are fine specimens of the work of some early Tudor sergeantpainter; but they are portraits only in so far as the Edward III is evidently suggested by the portrait effigy on his tomb, and the Henry V (we may be allowed to hope) by the silver head which was stolen from his chantry in 1546.

Of the rest of the portraits of pre-Tudor personages only one possesses any artistic interest; the kneeling bishop (No. 2) can hardly be Wykeham; the arms are later, and the black-letter inscription was copied by someone unfamiliar with contractions. But it seems to be early work, and is possibly derived from an illumination in a missal or (more probably) from stained glass, which it resembles in effect. The other Wykeham (No. 3), with the inset views of 'the two St. Mary Winton colleges,' seems to have been drawn from the same model as the William of Waynflete (No. 7), and that is thought to have been painted in 1638 by R. Greenbury; notice the seventeenth-century figures in the foreground of its view. The same hand may be traced in the Christ Church Wolsey

(No. 18), which is an imaginative enlargement of the small panel in the Bodleian (No. 19), itself early but conventional in character. To conclude the list of the more obvious' proxies,' the Chichele (No. 5) is more like Sonman's work than Greenbury's, though it has some features in common with one of the Wolseys; the Co-Founders of Brasenose (Nos. 14 and 15) must have been painted in the eighteenth century; and the Raleigh (No. III) is modern, but may be based on the portrait exhibited by Lord Hardwicke in 1866.

[ocr errors]

The smaller Waynflete (No. 6) cannot be contemporary, as the Bishop died in 1486; a comparison with the Stephen Gardiner (No. 29), which is probably authentic, and the Young Bishop (No. 13), who is more like Gardiner than Foxe or Oldham, suggests that it belongs to another class of ' proxies —namely, genuinely early portraits of unknown personages to which names have been affixed, seriously or humorously, in uncritical times. It can hardly be doubted, for instance, that some such explanation must be given of No. 20, a fine though retouched Flemish picture of an old woman with a rosary, which tradition asserts to be the last abbess of Godstow.' The panel is inscribed with the date 1529, aetatis 100,' but as both Margaret Tewkesbury and Katherine Bulkeley, the last two abbesses of Godstow, were alive in 1540, the date at least would not be plausible, even if the subject looked anything like a centenarian. The picture seems to have been given to the lodgings at St. John's about 1750; and as St. John's owns some of the lands of Godstow, and the old dame has a rosary and a girdle with 'Jhesus' and 'Maria'; but she can hardly be an abbess. Similarly the brilliant 'Dutch head' (No. 39)1 is traditionally described as Mary Bridgman, sister of Sir Thomas White; but in the absence of any early evidence it is quite as likely that this picture found its way to the college in consequence of the likeness to its founder. At the same time, the old story that the subject of the panel served as the model for the portrait of Sir Thomas White himself is not without plausibility. The portrait of him lent by the city of Oxford (No. 37), which does not appear to be later than those in the college, is known to have been produced by 'Sampson the paynter' in 1597. This is not bad work for a local painter, and Sampson may be responsible for several of the pictures of academic worthies, such as Dr. John Case (No. 54), who is represented as lecturing on the skeleton of a child of somewhat strange anatomy.

The first great master, Hans Holbein, is represented here by one of the very finest works of his earlier visit to England, Lord Dillon's Archbishop Warham (No. 21), painted in 1527. It is needless to say more of this superb panel than that it is considered superior even to the replica in the Louvre; its richness of tone and fullness of detail 1 Reproduced on page 217.

are emphasized by a fair modern copy of the Lambeth version (No. 22). The John Chambre (No. 27) is also a modern copy of the Holbein at Vienna; but it is so good that it might well pass for a replica. The small head of the poet Sir Thomas Wyatt (No. 24) is, like the circular panel in the National Portrait Gallery, a contemporary adaptation of a woodcut after a Holbein drawing which was published in 1543. The Sir Thomas Pope (No. 33) has some merit, but is probably only a copy of the fine picture at Tyttenhanger, which has been uncritically regarded as a Holbein; but it can hardly be by the master himself, as Pope was only thirty-six at the time of Holbein's death, and looks much older here. This picture strongly resembles in style the portrait of John Winchcombe the younger, the attribution of which to Holbein is disproved by the inscribed date 1550.

But if the Warham is the only certain Holbein in this exhibition, the Anne of Cleves (No. 30), lent by the president of St. John's, brings us into close contact with him. Mr. C. F. Bell has pointed out that a comparison of this with the Holbein in the Louvre shows that the two pictures must represent the same person at the same time, though in different positions. Head-dress, dress, and ornaments are identical in nearly every detail; the chief exceptions are that the Louvre portrait shows a jewel fastened to the hair, a dark mantle thrown over the rather ugly black and orange sleeves, a different girdle, and a piece of embroidery just above it. It is hard to resist the conclusion that this panel was the first, and was produced by some court painter at the time of Cromwell's overtures, but rejected in favour of Holbein's more flattering full-face presentment. At any rate it is a masterpiece, and is now exhibited for the first time.

Of pictures traditionally attributed to Holbein, the best appears to be No. 48, Dr. Hugh Price, the founder of Jesus College. Holbein must have been dead twenty years when it was painted; but it is a clever and well-authenticated portrait, and may not be too late to be the work of Johannes Corvus (Jan Rave), whose style it recalls. It was Corvus who painted (and signed) Bishop Foxe, the founder of Corpus, and probably Bishop Oldham as well. The committee has not been able to secure these two valuable portraits, the latter of which attracted great attention at the Tudor exhibition; but there are two quite early copies of the Foxe, one of which (No. 12) bears an inscription showing it was 'repurgata' and restored to the college by John Hooker in 1579.

The large portrait of Mary Tudor as Princess (No. 32), well known as one of the most striking pictures in the University Galleries, has certain affinities with Corvus's portrait of her in the matter of ornaments, etc., and must be very near it in date; but it is too smooth in the flesh painting and too rich and harmonious in colouring • Reproduced on page 215.

The Oxford Exhibition of Historical Portraits

to be his work. All attempts to trace its history have been ineffectual. Of the two presentments of Henry VIII, No. 26 has considerable merit, and seems to belong to the school of Holbein. The Lady Jane Grey (No. 28) resembles a smaller panel in the National Portrait Gallery. The Unknown Lady (No. 31) is both in date and in appearance too young to be Queen Mary; but the other small circular panel (No. 60) is no doubt Philip of Spain, and the inscription (an. aeta. sve 28) is consistent with the suggestion that it was painted in England by Lucas d'Heere.

The development in technique by the middle of the sixteenth century is illustrated here by several pictures of considerable importance. Only one of these is signed, but any one of them might give a name to a school. The earliest in manner is the Sir William Petre (No. 46) from Exeter College, which does not correspond exactly with any of the three Ingatestone pictures shown at the Tudor exhibition. In spite of overcleaning it is still fine; the extent of the damage to the face can be estimated by the early copy of the bust (No. 47). The portrait of Richard Pate (No. 53), dated 1550, is extraordinarily advanced in style for that date, since there is not the slightest insistence on accessories, and the whole attention is directed towards the face; there is nothing here of which it would be more interesting to discover the history. The painter must have belonged to the same school as Antonis Mor, though the work of the two masters is quite distinct. It is fairly safe to refer to Mor the Bodleian portrait which is known as Sir Francis Walsingham (No. 61), but cannot represent that statesman unless the inscription, AETA 35 A° 1573, is not genuine. It is more likely that the name has been affixed to it by some donor in consequence of the likeness to Lord Sackville's Walsingham; but the expression is much less rusé.

In contrast with these two the stiffness of the ordinary female portraits of the period can be seen in Dame Elizabeth Pope (No. 62) and Joyce Frankland (Nos. 50 and 51); the smaller of these two is evidently the original, as can be seen from the painting of the watch and other accessories. The Unknown Navigator (No. 45), which once figured in the University Galleries as Christopher Columbus, bears so strong a resemblance to Sir Martin Frobisher, with whose authentic full-length portrait by Cornelis Ketel dated 1577 (No. 68) it can now be compared, that it is tempting to disregard the inscribed date 1562, and pronounce it an independent Frobisher of about the same date as the Ketel. Last and best of the early Elizabethan portraits of civilians comes the Sir William Cordell (No. 52) from St. John's. In this case, besides the date 1565, there is a signature, CORnelius de ZeEU PINXIT. This masterly work by an otherwise unknown artist would suffice to show how uncertain all speculative attribution

must be. No other case of this signature is known; but it may be suggested that there is some connexion with the Marinus van Romerswale, to whom the Money Changers of the National Gallery is now ascribed, and who is identifiable with Vasari's Marino di Siressa (? Ziricksee in Zeeland). Marinus is simply a translation of de Zeeuw; and in the next generation there was an engraver named Ignatius Cornelis Marinus. Van Romerswale was alive as late as 1565; and the style of this picture is certainly akin to that of the school of Matsys. One other portrait (No. 94) belongs to the same period and bears the date 1566, though a conjectural identification with William Stocke, principal of Gloucester Hall, has placed it later in the chronological order. It must have been cut down at top and bottom, and the lettering in its present form is not contemporary; but the brilliant painting of the flesh and hair and the warmth of colour distinguish it from anything in the room. It is probably the work of a miniaturist.

If the so-named Walsingham is only a probable Mor, there is no doubt about Lord Dillon's halflength of Sir Henry Lee (No. 99), once supposed, on account of the armillary spheres on the sleeves, to be Sir Francis Drake; the signature, ANTONIUS MOR PINGEBAT 1568, can be found in the righthand bottom corner; it is as brilliant a specimen of this master as exists in England, and may serve as a standard by which to estimate his work. Sir Henry's brothers, Cromwell Lee (No. 70) and Sir Richard Lee (No. 100), are good specimens of the work of the school of Mor; and the same tradition, longo intervallo, is perhaps to be traced in the Unknown Men (Nos. 78 and 91) from Trinity College.*

The portraits of Elizabethan statesmen, with the possible exception of a reduced half-length of Burghley (No.63), do not appear to be contemporary; but of Elizabeth herself there are no less than seven portraits here, two or three of which are of the first importance. The best known is the large oval bust (No. 90) from Jesus College bursary, which is commonly accepted as the work of Zuccaro; but many critics will pronounce the Jesus College half-length (No. 85), reproduced in the catalogue, to be a far more interesting picture. It is dated 1590, and portrays the queen with a haggard expression which belies her artificial complexion, and decorated with a variety of fruits, flowers, and trinkets, from which its history may one day be discovered. The Bodleian Elizabeth (No. 88) is remarkable only for the cleverness with which the textures of the silk and muslin dress are reproduced. Of the others the full-length from Jesus College Hall (No. 86) has been too extensively repainted, but the Florentine angels who hold a wreath are difficult to explain. No. 84 is a half-length of the same type.

• Reproduced on page 219.

• No. 78 is reproduced on page 217.

5

Sir G. Dashwood's Unknown Lady (No. 80) also suffers from a completely repainted face, but is of some value as a study of costume. Mrs. F. P. Morrell's Nurse and Child (No. 79) is of about the same date; it is absolutely convincing in the way of portraiture, and much better in composition. than most of the baby pictures of the period. Miss Gordon's little picture of Henry Shirley (No. 117) is curious as a specimen of the costume and expression which were considered suitable for an infant one year old. The Lady Betty Paulet from the University Galleries (No. 74), attributed to Daniel Mytens, does not really belong to this period, if she was the donor as late as 1636 of the needlework of which she displays a specimen. She rivals Queen Elizabeth in the splendour of her dress and accessories; but many people will prefer the quieter style of the Margaret Russell, Countess of Cumberland (No. 109), which appears to be a well-preserved original of the date 1588.

Among the remaining pictures it will be sufficient to indicate the more interesting problems. The three Wadham portraits illustrate the confusion that may be caused by redecoration, etc. No. 112, an excellent picture of the foundress in old age, was acquired early in the eighteenth century; and the college then seems to have had its original pictures of Nicholas and Dorothy of the date 1595 (Nos. 116 and 113) retouched, reinscribed, and reframed in the same style, and to have matched the later Dorothy by a posthumous Nicholas. The earlier Dorothy is a fair English picture; the later one is decidedly superior. Of the academic portraits the most interesting are the two Camdens (Nos. 124 and 125); the latter is the most authentic portrait in the whole room, since the letter is still extant in which Degory Whear thanks Camden for the gift of it to Gloucester Hall: the former is a memorial picture painted by Marc Gheeraedts the younger, from a head dated 1609. Almost equally authentic, though of little interest as a painting, is the Alexander Nowell (No. 71), who is surrounded by fishing tackle; it is mentioned as 'carefully kept at Brasenose,' in Izaak Walton's delightful panegyric. Far finer than these is the best of the later ecclesiastical portraits, the bust of Bishop John King (No. 120) dated 1620,6 ascribed to Daniel Mytens, but probably the work of Cornelius Janssen; it is obviously the original of No. 119, a memorial picture dated 1622. With this should be compared the Bodleian Sir Thomas Overbury (No. 106), in all probability also by Janssen, and presented by a member of the family. Lord

• Reproduced on page 217.
Reproduced on page 219.

Dillon's Overbury (No. 107) is a less idealized representation, more difficult to ascribe.

Finally the group of portraits of Henry Frederick Prince of Wales merits the closest attention. The earliest, no doubt, is Lord Dillon's full-length (No. 101), in which the Prince is aged eleven, and wears the robes of the Bath. The face is undeveloped, and bears a strong resemblance to James I. The Bodleian half-length (No. 103), in which the Prince wears the George, must be three or four years later, and is also a most convincing picture, in which the likeness to Anne of Denmark predominates. Next must come the full-length belonging to Magdalen College (No. 102), which seems to be a made-up picture intended to balance Michael Wright's Prince Rupert; at any rate, it is difficult to believe that the hair and eyes are really true to life. Latest in age, as appears by the slight moustache, must be Sir George Dashwood's (No. 105); it is not particularly well painted, but is of very great interest as an untouched picture of unconventional type, evidently faithful and possibly original. The Bodleian bust (No. 104) can hardly represent Prince Henry; it portrays a young man of more than eighteen, and is probably a head by Janssen, wrongly named owing to a superficial likeness. With this charming group must be mentioned the hitherto unexhibited half-length of James I (No. 128), a companion to the Prince Henry, with the same sort of merit; and Lord Dillon's beautiful and hitherto unexhibited full-length of Prince Charles (No. 137), which must have been painted within a few months of his brother's death.

It will be clear from the above notes that this collection is one of exceptional interest and variety from every point of view. In London it would be crowded for the six weeks during which it will be open; and Oxford is now so near London that even without the influx of visitors in the Eights week, and in spite of the fact that it must be closed before 'the Schools' and Commemoration, it is hoped that the financial success will amply justify similar exhibitions drawn from the 1,400 portraits in Oxford galleries. Besides these, other great Oxfordshire houses, such as Wroxton Abbey, contain stores of almost unknown masterpieces; but it is not likely that any groups will surpass those contributed on this occasion by St. John's College and Ditchley, which would make the fortune of any gallery or collection. If incidentally attention is attracted to the needs of the Bodleian Gallery Restoration Fund by the specimens of the results already achieved, the committee will have established one more claim on the gratitude of the University as well as on that of all students of art and of the general public.

« AnteriorContinua »