HEAD OF JEAN DE DINTEVILLE, FROM HOLBEIN'S 'AMBASSADORS IN THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT OF JEAN DE DINTEVILLE, FROM A DRAWING AT CHANTILLY of the picture that I venture to think it worth. consideration. The girl cannot be Cecilia Gonzaga, for two reasons among many. In the first place, we have her portrait on Pisanello's medal, and the resemblance between the two is merely such as exists between most young women of the same time. Further, M. Ravaisson's identification (Revue archéologique, 22, 1893, pp. 1 f.) is based on a most elaborate hypothesis for which there is not the least foundation. She has also been identified with Leonello d'Este's first wife, Margherita Gonzaga, but of her appearance we know nothing. We know that the impresa of the vase with branches, roots, and anchors, which the subject of the picture wears on her sleeve, was being embroidered on a garment for Leonello d'Este in 1441. Professor Venturi, in his edition of Vasari (p. 69), adduces this fact as an argument against the identification with Margherita, who died in 1439. But he gives no proof that the impresa was not used before 1441. At the same time, we may readily accept his suggestion that the girl is one of Leonello's sisters; she has his mouth and chin, though not his nose, and she has the extraordinary cranium, bulging out backwards at a sharp angle with the nape of the neck, which, as we know from medals, is characteristic of both Niccolò and his son. Which sister, then, is she? The secret is surely revealed by the sprig of juniper which she wears in her corsage. She is Ginevra d'Este, who was affianced to Sigismondo Malatesta on March 15, 1433, went to Rimini in February 1434, bore a son in 1437, and died, perhaps poisoned by her husband, in 1440. She is represented in the picture as quite a girl, say between fourteen and eighteen years old. As she was born on March 24, 1419, this would date the picture between 1433 and 1437, a time when Pisanello was executing frequent commissions for the court of Ferrara. If the picture was painted for the Este gallery, we can well understand that she would be represented wearing an Este impresa, although she may have already become the wife of Sigismondo Malatesta. G. F. HILL. A PORTRAIT OF JEAN DE DINTEVILLE, ONE OF HOLBEIN'S AMBASSADORS MONGST the drawings by Jean Clouet and his school, formerly at Castle Howard, now at Chantilly, representing the ladies and gentlemen of the court of Francis I, there is one, at present unnamed (No. 268), which may, I think, without hesitation be identified as a portrait of Jean de Dinteville, seigneur of Polisy and bailly Some Portraits Identified of Troyes. The resemblance to that personage as pourtrayed by Holbein in the picture of the Ambassadors is very striking, both in general effect and in detail. The fashion of the hair and beard, the shape of the cap, the manner in which it is worn, are identical. These points appear to indicate that the drawing is of nearly the same date as the picture; possibly Dinteville sat for the drawing shortly before or after he came over to England in 1533, on his longest embassy. But it is when the details of the drawing are scrutinized that the personality seems placed beyond doubt. The form of the head; the broad forehead, with the straight, well-marked eyebrows; the high cheek-bones; the eyes set somewhat on the surface, and slightly forcing out the lower eyelids; the fine bridge and rather heavy point of the nose, the latter showing some indication of divided cartilage; the small, firmly-closed mouth; the lobe of the ear, just protruding from beneath the thick hair-all these show a completeness of agreement that is rare at any time in the work of two different hands, and seem to prove the identification conclusively. The chief difference between the two presentments lies in the far greater animation of Holbein's portrait, which makes the drawing appear dull by comparison. But this, I think, may fairly be laid to the score of the superiority in genius of one painter over the other. Admirable as are the portraits of Janet and his school, it would clearly be applying a false standard to expect of them the highly vitalized quality which is found in Holbein's best work. Moreover, the drawing has suffered; it is rubbed, and has lost brilliancy. I understand that this portrait was identified, provisionally, as that of Guillaume du Bellay, Sieur de Langey-on what grounds I do not knowbut that recent students have rejected that identification on account of absence of resemblance to the known portraits of Langey. Not only is this objection well founded, but the latter was a much older man than is here represented at the time when, judging by the style of the hair and cap, this portrait was executed. The niche remains open, therefore, to Dinteville, and I think there can be no doubt that he is the right individual to fill it. The source of the portrait adds to its interest and confirms the identification. Dinteville spent most of his early and middle life, except when absent on an occasional embassy, at the court of Francis I, to whose youngest son, Charles, successively Duke of Angoulême and of Orleans, he was governor. It is precisely, therefore, amongst these drawings of the notabilities of that court that it is natural to find his portrait. MARY F. S. HERVEY. 1 See illustration, page 412. BY C. J. HOLMES. O the student of English painting the sight of Mr. James Orrock's collection at Christie's must inevitably have presented a number of interesting problems. Apart from one or two public collections it would be hard to name a more comprehensive series of English pictures. It is of course unreasonable to expect from a private collector, however critical his taste might be, quite that sustained standard of excellence and importance which is found in such a place as our National Gallery. It would be natural too, in the case of one so enthusiastic as Mr. Orrock, and collecting on so extensive a scale, to note gaps and places where the level of work was distinctly unequal although still of a high average. For this reason such a collection is perhaps more stimulating to the student than one in which he sees every painter at his best, and represented by masterpieces selected and sifted by whole generations of critical taste. As far as the water-colours were concerned Mr. Orrock's collection was almost above criticism, perhaps because he was himself a water-colour painter of remarkable accomplishment. The oilpaintings, on the other hand, seemed to have been catalogued on a different principle, and the presence of a well-known name was in a good many cases only a general indication of authorship. This broad system of classification has some immediate advantages, but in after times, if it has the authority of a well-known collector, it may render the separation of school pictures or copies even more troublesome than it would naturally be. For this reason it may be useful to suggest the reconsideration of certain attributions before they have acquired the respectability of being traditional. Taking the great masters in chronological order, we find Richard Wilson represented in the catalogue by no less than twenty-four canvases. Some of the small pictures, such as Nos. 307, 313, 314, 315, and 320, were really delightful specimens of Wilson's art, and most of the others were sound and manly pictures if now and then a trifle heavy and formal. No. 316, however, was obviously an old copy of No. 308, and Nos. 149 and 150 must be classed with it; the originals in the case of the latter pair being the well-known works in the National Gallery. The Road Scene (318), should, we think, be given to Ibbetson. The large Lake Scene (147), too, might possibly not stand the test of close examination. The loose and sloppy River Scene (151) on the other hand, which many might feel inclined to doubt, was a perfectly genuine specimen of Wilson's style during the latter part of his residence in London, when poverty and neglect had made him hasty and careless. Of the portraits by Gainsborough, that of Mrs. Charlotte Freer (93) was the most admired, and deservedly so, for it was in every way a masterpiece. The pleasant little Head of a Gentleman (263) was perhaps an early work by Gainsborough, though the tone and treatment recalled those of Cotes. The clever portrait of Miss Crisp of Beccles (264) on the other hand was certainly not by Gainsborough himself, though reminiscent of him, and the suggestion of Gainsborough Dupont as its painter seems possible. The largest of the landscapes given to Gainsborough was the Forest Scene with four lambs (95). The picture is of Gainsborough's time, but was heavy and dull, showing no trace whatever of his hand. The brilliant and forcible White Horse (94) deservedly attracted more attention by its forcible handling and strong colour. Here again it was hard to see a single touch that was characteristic of Gainsborough, but if we imagine that the landscape was by Hoppner the solution of the problem is easy. The backgrounds of Hoppner's more elaborate portraits show exactly the same character of pigment and brushwork, though for compositional reasons they are often modified by heavy glazing. Hoppner's admirable landscape drawings often pass for those of Gainsborough, and the difference between them is just the same as that between this strong but rough and rather shapeless brushwork and the feathery calligraphic touch of such a landscape as the Market Cart in the National Gallery. The thick and slovenly painting of the Woody Landscape (96) proved it at once to be an imitation, nor did another Wood Scene (97) resemble Gainsborough's colour or handling, although it was evidently the work of a professional artist. The drawing of the horse suggests a connexion with some such animal painter as Sawrey Gilpin, or Stubbs. The smaller Woody Landscape (98), however, was an excellent example of Gainsborough's style in early manhood before he had shaken off the influence of Wynants and developed the freedom and luminosity which mark his mature work. Pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds have become so costly that it is unfair to expect too much from the collection of anyone who is not a millionaire. Mr. Orrock was thus fortunate in possessing the large Mary Countess of Thanet (129) in addition to the rather damaged Mrs. Hodges (131) and the Lady Anne Fitzpatrick (128). This last picture, though not identical with the engraving that accompanied it, and though somewhat loosely painted and heavily glazed, was evidently from Sir Joshua's studio. The Head of a Child (132) from Lord Leighton's collection was less satisfactory, and the portrait of Mrs. Wells (130) might with more reason have been given to Cotes, whose Notes on Mr. Orrock's English Pictures exceptionally fine portrait called Kitty Fisher (75) occupied a place of honour in the large room at King Street. As Kitty Fisher died young and the other portraits of her do not at all resemble this handsome dame, we may reasonably doubt whether the name is not a mistake. The portrait of Miss Elizabeth Grove (133) was the most attractive of the five pictures given to Romney, though those of Mrs. Close (134) and the Rev.-Humphrey (135) were also sound and typical specimens of his work. The portrait of a lady in a white dress (136) was certainly later in date and recalled the manner of Beechey, just as the portrait of a gentleman (137) recalled that of Gilbert Stuart. Raeburn and Morland too were, on the whole, well represented, though two of the portraits given to the former (126 and 190) looked remarkably like the work of John Jackson. The Sheep in a Pen (304) by James Ward was a good example of the closeness with which that manly artist in early life followed Morland's style. In his treatment of the Norwich school Mr. Orrock was less fortunate. Thirteen pictures bore the name of John Crome, and not one of them could be called representative of that admirable artist. It will be easiest to consider them in order. The large and skilful view in Norfolk (80) was a very fine early work by John Berney Crome, as a comparison with his picture in the Norwich museum would show. It was an excellent picture in its degree, though the colour had the cold and purplish tone which is often found in the work of Vincent, Stannard, and Henry Bright. The Glade Cottage (81) was a poor imitation of one of Crome's etchings. The Landscape with Windmills (82) was hung high, but seemed to be a view of the end of Mousehold Heath by J. B. Crome, painted several years later than No. 8o. It will be noticed that his colour has become as hot as it was previously cold, though the pigment has not the wet and sloppy look of his later years. The Forest Scene (83) comes very near to John Crome, but a comparison with the picture in the National Gallery will prove that it is by his great friend the elder Ladbrooke. The Moonlight Scene (84) was a characteristic late work by Paul. The pretty Edge of a Wood (85) was a typical specimen of the work of W. H. Crome, a timid painter, apparently influenced by Nasmyth as well as by his father. The Woody River Scene (86) was obviously a Dutch picture by some such painter as Dekker or De Vries. A more troublesome problem was presented by the View on a Norfolk River (87)—a picture distinctly fine in its general effect, recalling indeed the large Newark Abbey by Turner, of which Mr. Orrock used to be the owner. The handling, however, was everywhere so feeble and timid (the execrable drawing of the willow stems might be instanced) as to preclude the possibility of its having been painted by any professional painter of Crome's time. Can there have been some ambitious Norwich amateur who for once hit upon a singularly splendid idea? It seems the most likely solution of the problem. The Woody Stream (250) was another puzzle. The work was exceedingly skilful and delicate, but displayed a mixture of influences-Stark and Vincent on the left, Gainsborough on the right. The name of Burrows of Ipswich has been suggested. I know too little of his work to criticize the suggestion; but this admirable picture, though certainly not by Crome, was good enough to be worth possessing for its own sake. The Woody River Scene (251) was a typical version by Paul of the Scene at Hingham etched by Crome, of which there is a painting in the Tate Gallery. The River Scene (252) had no connexion with Crome, and might with more reason be given to Callcott. No. 253, too, had no connexion with Norwich. The Wood near Marlingford (254) was probably by Alfred Stannard, while The Woody Lane (255) was possibly by Richard Hilder. Two able oil paintings were given to John Sell Cotman. Off Portsmouth (76), in spite of the signature, did not show a trace of J. S. Cotman's power of synthetic design and broad scheme. of colouring. If, however, we look upon it as an experiment on an unusual scale by his son, Miles Cotman, all difficulties vanish. The Street Scene (77), again, though an able piece of painting, was certainly not by Cotman, but was by one of the painters who in England were influenced by Bonington as Isabey was in France. In his choice of works by Bonington Mr. Orrock was singularly fortunate, and The Meditation (229) and The Coast Scene (230) are the only two specimens to which any doubt might reasonably attach. The latter picture seemed to be a damaged work by George Vincent. It might be well compared with the large and typical Coast Scene (142) in which the treatment of the waves suggests an affinity with that puzzle of the National Gallery-The Galiot in a Gale-bearing the name of Cotman. The River Scene (143), attributed to Vincent, was a wonderfully fine example of the work of Joseph Stannard, and the Cattle Piece (302) may possibly be an early work by Sidney Cooper. The River Scene (303), too, was not by any means representative of Vincent. Mr. Orrock's Walton Bridges has long been famous, and three of the other works given to Turner were fine. The Shipwreck (140) was a singularly interesting variant of the composition. in the National Gallery, while the airy beauty of Off the Nore (141) was of a quality no subsequent plein-air painting has compassed. The delightful early work The Top of the Knoll (300) not only showed Turner as the inspired pupil of Wilson, but resembled Crome's Shepherd Boy on Mousehold Heath (South Kensington Museum) so closely as to suggest (as one or two early works by Turner suggest) that he had somehow seen one or two pictures by his great contemporary. Of the two other pictures given to Turner, the Ulysses (299) was obviously a copy, and the Jedburgh Abbey (298) was almost certainly a work by Alexander Nasmyth. No less than twenty-four oil paintings and eight water-colours bore the name of Constable. Of these the first in the catalogue is the large watercolour, A View near Bentley (9), which, though it may be in part by John Constable, was certainly not his in its entirety. Next came the famous East Bergholt Mill (64), a palette-knife sketch of wonderful force, in which Constable's peculiar gifts are seen to better advantage than in many a finished picture. The clumsy Hampstead Heath (65) was, of course, only a sketch by some unknown bungler from the Sheepshanks picture at South Kensington. The Cornfield (66) and the Hilly Landscape (67) were also dull copies; the original of the latter being a View on Hampstead Heath, at South Kensington. Neither of the versions of the Glebe Farm (68 and 70) could be accepted as works by Constable. No. 68, however, was an imitation of the National Gallery picture by James Webb, to whose versatile talent the River Scene (71) must also be ascribed. The original in this case was Sir Samuel Montagu's large picture of Stratford Mill, or more probably the engraving David Lucas made from it. On the other hand the East Bergholt, Suffolk (68), was a fine and genuine example of Constable's style about the year 1812, when he was passing from the tradition of the old masters to the cooler, brighter tonality we associate with his name. The picture has the additional interest of representing the house in which the artist was born. The heavy view of Rochester (72) did not show a trace of Constable's handling, while Nos. 73 and 74 were manifestly copies. The series of water-colours (172-177) was by some other hand; but the view of Bergholt Church (171) was an interesting and genuine drawing, dating from the latter part of the eighteenth century, when Constable was still a miller, and had not started his studies in London. The signature and date 1811 must thus be later additions. Several of the small sketches attributed to Constable were interesting. No. 235 was a brilliant and genuine work dating from about 1825, and the Sand Bank (236) was a pleasant study from nature executed perhaps about the year 1808; but the Battersea Mill (237) was a clever picture by some professional painter of the fifties. No. 238 was a poor imitation of Constable's engraved Autumnal Sunset, while No. 239 has no connexion with him at all, and was probably by some Frenchman. The View near the Coast (240) was very genuine and characteristic of Constable so far as the middle distance was concerned; the sky and foreground seemed touched by another hand. Nos. 241 and 243 again showed no trace of Constable's brush; the former may have been an early work by Havell. No. 242 with all its heaviness was quite possibly one of Constable's experiments in boyhood, and No. 244, in spite of its oddness, might be accepted as genuine on the strength of the story told in Leslie's life. The Barges on the Stour (245) was also a pleasant cool study, perhaps done about 1814; the place sketched being apparently just below Flatford Mill. No. 246 was a brilliant little specimen of Müller, and must have been classified as Constable's by mistake. The series ends with the remarkable Landscape with Children in an Avenue (247), an able and forcible work certainly not by Constable, but which might with some reason be attributed to the friend and companion of Constable's early manhood-Reinagle. Having already exceeded the space allotted to me I have no time to speak of many other admirable pictures and drawings which the collection contains, such as the Windsor Castle, by David Cox (79), and the magnificent series of drawings by Turner (40-46). These notes having special reference to pictures whose attributions best seem to deserve reconsideration, cannot give a fair impression of the value of Mr. Orrock's collection. Since they were written the sale has taken place, and though in some cases the prices may have seemed high, the purchasers of the best pictures may certainly be congratulated on having got them at exceedingly moderate prices. |