The Swagger Portrait Grand Manner Portraiture in Britain from Van Dyck to Augustus john 1630-1930 14 October 1992 — Iojanuary 1993 Tate Gallery WHAT IS SWAGGER? What is swagger? Shakespeare put the word into the mouth of Puck, in A Midsummer Niglat 3" Dream: ‘What hempen homespuns have we swaggering here?’ he asks, meeting Bottom and his rude mechanicals in the wood. The connota- tions of coarseness and insolent preten- sion have survived, but over the centuries the word has gained new overtones. In the last hundred years or so it has acquired a colloquial meaning that is unequivocally admiring and suggests social superiority, very far from being either hempen or homespun. In this sense it implies showiness and ostentation, but these qualities are tolerated, if not admired, as amusing and entertaining. Its insolence has become a legitimate social challenge and it includes all forms of rhetoric and glamour, not least a direct use of sex appeal. It can embrace both the grandest of state affairs and the artificial effects of the theatre. The word exactly conveys the mood of the portraits that are the subject of this exhibition. We are concerned with that class of likeness which puts public display before the more private values of personality and domesticity. Swagger is usually to be found on the scale of the life-size full- length —- sometimes even bigger — but the same qualities can be found in smaller canvases, in half-lengths and even occasionally in miniatures. It is all a question of the style of presentation. Cover illustration: Jonathan Richardson Edward and Constantia Rolt c.1695 (no.2o) SWAGGER — THE BRITISH ATTITUDE When we summon up images of ‘swagger’ portraiture we are more likely to think of examples by artists trained on the continent of Europe than of anything by a British hand: Van Dyck, Batoni, Winterhalter, and Sargent (an American) are names that instantly evoke the sort of stylishness in question, whereas it is hard to pinpoint a single British artist who can be said to have made it a primary aim, or to have achieved it more than occasionally. This is not only because British artists were trained differently: their training was adapted to the nation’s pictorial requirements. In Britain paint has traditionally been used in a direct, experimental way. The Royal Academy, founded in 1768, did not institute classes in the technique of painting: ideas were more important. Typically, the British portrait, like British landscape painting, is earthy, bold and exploratory in its handling, risking accidents and sacrificing a smooth or a fluid surface to the blunt and incisive portrayal of character. In portraying people, the Protestant virtues of civic worth, domestic honour and administrative probity were the qualities to be stressed. The Englishman has always instinctively preferred to be shown as a doer rather than as a mere passive recipient of honour. Glamour was looked on with suspicion, sex appeal positively disapproved of. This fact has not prevented British portrait painters from casting admiring, even envious, glances over their shoulders at their European colleagues. In Catholic countries — notably France, Italy, and Flanders — distinguished men have frequently been presented, by artists such as Largilliere or Batoni, with all their distinction converted into sex appeal. Social forces may well have made it difficult for artists here to emulate such examples even if they wished to do so. But clients, too, have had their weakness for such things, and there has always been a market among Britons for the successful purveyors of glamour in portraiture. THE SWAGGER PORTRAIT INVENTED: VAN DYCK Until the end of the sixteenth century, portraiture in Europe was often impressive, and in the hands of artists like Titian and Holbein (who introduced the art into this country) could be very great indeed. But these works lack one quality necessary for the full swagger effect: dynamic composition. European art acquired a new sense of movement during the later sixteenth century, culminating in the turbulence of Rubens and the Italian Baroque painters. This was the great age of the Counter- Reformation, that vigorous reassertion of the Roman Catholic faith in the face of advancing Protestantism. At the height of this movement, and very soon after the word ‘swagger’ had been taken up by Shakespeare, a painter from Flanders came to England and brought the concept to portrait painting. This was Anthony Van Dyck (1599-1641). Trained under Rubens in Antwerp, and enormously influenced, as Rubens was, by the achievements of the Italian, and especially the Venetian, Renaissance, Van Dyck was one of the great artists of the Counter-Reformation. His art embodied all the exuberance and love of allegory that characterised the great religious decorations of that movement. There was no room for such works in England, where, as Hazlitt said, ‘Paintings in Protestant churches are a contradiction in terms’. But Charles I was married to a Catholic, the French princess Henrietta Maria (no.1), and there was a strongly Continental, if not Italianate, flavour to the culture of his court. The masques devised by Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones were elaborate and sophisticated entertainments in which the royal family and nobility took active parts. Van Dyck seems to have found it all highly congenial. He may even have modified some of his basic’ portrait types in the light of what he witnessed at the royal performances at Whitehall. His natural fluency of brushwork and elegance of invention were given a new direction by the fanciful sets and costumes that Jones provided for these masques. So, along with his immense influence on British portraiture, which this exhibition surveys through 300 years, he brought a strong inspiration from the theatre, which has remained a part of the tradition through- out the period. The greater informality of English costume, too, inevitably influenced Van Dyck away from the somewhat stiff and highly coloured portraiture of his years in Italy and Flanders. In London, he painted the society of the Cavaliers: beautiful women (no.4), and men who, whether soldiers or statesmen (no.3), were often sensitive poets, whose philosophy was an idealistic Christian Neo-Platonism. This was often expounded in works rich in literary allusion and poetic imagery that reinforced the traditional hierarchy of things round the stable centre of the divinely appointed monarch. All these ideas are implicit in the regal decorum of Van Dyck’s portraits. His sumptuous picture of the Countess of Southampton as Fortune (no.7), descending from heaven on clouds, simultaneously evokes the world of the court masques and the altarpieces of Baroque Italy. CIVIL WAR AND RESTORATION Van Dyck’s influence was incalculable. But while he inspired innumerable imitators, his example gave rise to an artist who was perhaps the first to develop a distinctively ‘British’ style of painting: this was William Dobson (1610/1 1-46), chief painter to Charles I after Van Dyck’s death and during the Kings years locked in combat with Parliament. Dobson took over many of Van Dyck’s ideas, but adapted them to Sir Anthony Van Dyck Venetin Stanley, lady Digby, at Prudence 16 3 3 (no.2) a more robust life. His portraits are crowded with symbolic accessories, illustrating the personalities and activities of his sitters. Dobson’s technique is quite unlike Van Dyck’s — crusty, sinewy and unaffected, like the blunt, practical Englishmen he painted (nos.8, 9). In contrast to the austerities of the Commonwealth that followed Charles I’s defeat and execution, the Restoration brought a new enthusiasm for all the arts. Charles II (no.17) was a free-living man with strong Catholic leanings like his father, and much of the old flamboyance and elegance were recaptured at his court, though with noticeably less of the poetic sensitivity that distinguished the world Van Dyck had painted. Rumbus- tious sexual comedies replaced sensitive love lyrics as the staple literature of the day. Charles II’s mistresses, as presented by his favourite artist, Peter Lely (1618-80), offer a telling contrast to the beauties of the earlier court. Their sexuality is far more blatant, their more spiritual qualities are suppressed. The most promiscuous ladies are painted, ironically, in the character of saints (no.12). The battery of symbolism available to Van Dyck becomes in Lely’s hands a set of dressing-up clothes and props, their literary or religious meaning reduced to mere titillation. But Lely was for all this a Dutchman and his works are usually simple in their compositional structure (nos. 1 1, 13). It was his Flemish rival Jacob Huysmans (0.163 3—c.1696), the favourite of Charles’s Portuguese Queen, Catherine of Braganza, who continued the Baroque tradition with his overblown canvases of figures real and allegorical in fantastic combinations (no.14). Huysmans loaded his pictures with a complexity of content that is entirely appropriate to a Catholic artist serving a largely Catholic group of patrons. Yet quite unexpectedly, another Dutch artist, Jacob de Wet (1640-97), in the unlikely setting of the Scottish Highlands, produced one of the most fanciful works of these years — his portrait of the Marquis of Atholl at the Battle of Bothwell Brig (no.19). Atholl’s fantastic Roman armour and contorted pose contrast strangely with the beautiful and more authentic Highland costume in the painting by John Michael Wright (1617-94) of Lord Mungo Murray, presented as a forthright young laird in 3 simple, dignified and alert pose (no.16). REVOLUTION After the departure of the overtly Catholic James II, ignominiously ejected in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the arrival of William of Orange, everything changed. The court was now essentially Dutch, its tastes domestic and subdued, ruled by the conscientious puritanism of serious-minded administra- tors. Some painters, like the French- trained John Closterman (166o—17 1 1), remained to adapt the language of the high Baroque to the new age (no.21), but the court painter par excellence was Godfrey Kneller ( 1646/ 9-1 72 3), a German with almost no panache in his artistic make-up. His court beauties of the 16905 are a far cry from those Lely painted for Charles in the 16605: sober ladies in still, almost stiff poses (no.18), with the allegorical and symbolical trappings of their predecessors replaced, if at all, by simple symbols of purity and virtue, without even the irony and innuendo that lent a certain je ne sair quoi to Lely’s pictures. If the ladies were to be shown as virtuous, their menfolk had to be upright, worthy, active — icons of a more public merit. Neo-Platonic virtues were now replaced by the more practical values of steadfastness and efficiency. As the painter and writer Jonathan Richardson (c.1665—1745) explained in his Esray on the Theory of Painting (1 7 15), ‘to sit for one’s picture, is to have an abstract of one’s life written, and published, and ourselves thus consigned over to honour, or infamy’. So the portrait was now quite consciously conceived as a means of conveying a moral lesson: the sitter was flattered, and his evident virtue set an example to the world. A man’s purpose in life was embodied in his public function: as soldier, statesman or landowner, he performed certain recognised duties and occupied a defined place in the scheme of things. The primary task of women was to be loving wives and fecund mothers, roles which did not lend themselves so readily to direct expression in portraiture: they were like blank sheets on which the artist could invent as he pleased. So there was room for female portraiture to become increasingly fanciful, and for the old pastoral and mythological vocabulary to be revived and extended. A NATIVE STYLE AFFIRMED: HOGARTH But now the national school began to find its feet, and new priorities emerged. The robust, direct manner of painting that had been developed in the mid- seventeenth century by William Dobson found its natural exponent and apologist in William Hogarth (1697-1764). Hogarth believed fervently in the self- sufficiency of British art, and abhorred what he saw as the pernicious foreign influences around him. When he painted his supremely English portrait of Captain Coram (no.24) he tried — with great success — to show that there was a native equivalent to the histrionic portraits of the French. Hogarth’s touch is firm yet sensitive, wonderfully suggestive of the warmth and vibrancy of living human beings, and responsive to the accidental rhythms of their dress. His practical approach was essentially opposed to the more theatrical aspects of the swagger portrait, but he was determined to prove that a British version of the phenomenon existed. One very evident result of the experiment was that the middle classes suddenly found themselves included among the legitimate subjects of serious art. THE CLASSICAL TRADITION RESTATED If Hogarth was reluctant to admit foreign influences, he had contemporaries who were only too willing to do so. Many actively collaborated with ‘the enemy’ by employing drapery painters from abroad, like the Fleming Joseph Van Aken (1699-1749), who completed pictures to which the master had often only contributed the head and a general plan for the composition. Despite Van Aken’s virtuoso skill as a painter of waistcoats, the portraits of Thomas Hudson (1701-79) remain very down-to-earth in a typically English way (no.2 5). They contrast markedly with the instinctive panache of the Italian Pompeo Batoni (1708-87), who never left Italy but established a great reputation painting the young milords who came to Rome on the grand tour (nos.29, 30). He had a knack of endowing these gentlemen with a glamour and a presence that make them seem like young gods — no wonder they flocked to him. Some British artists steeped them- selves fully in Continental art. The Scot Allan Ramsay (1713-84) spent a prof- itable time in Batoni’s Rome, training under Imperiali and Solimena. When he returned to make his career in London he brought back a fine technique married to a clear understanding of the classical tradition. His first-hand knowledge of Italian art combined with an innate sensitivity of observation so that he was able to give fresh life to ancient formulas. This he did in his memorable portrait of the MacLeod, striding along the shore in his plaid (no.27). The marrying of Highland costume with Roman rhetorical gesture in this picture set a precedent that was to dictate the course of grand portraiture in Britain for many decades. The hint was taken up by Joshua Reynolds (1723-92), who became the inspiration of all painters aspiring to true seriousness in the later part of the century. Allan Ramsay Norman, ‘The Red Man’, 22nd C/JiefofMz1cLe0d 1748 (no.27) THE GRAND MANNER: REYNOLDS AND GAINSBOROUGH Like Ramsay, Reynolds eagerly sought an acquaintance with the fount of all art, Rome, and brought back a store of ideas for his pictures, taken from all the great works of the Renaissance and Baroque periods. He did not approve so much of contemporary Italian painting — he found the suave, polished portraits of Batoni lacking in unity — ‘the whole not well put together’, as he said. Reynolds sought unity above all — the unity that is the sign of seriousness and aesthetic integrity. That integrity was the aesthetic equivalent of the integrity of his sitters, a translation into artistic terms of the old argument that a portrait is an icon of worth. The stratagems employed by Reynolds to impose grand associations on the portraits of his sitters are exceptionally inventive and witty, and offer a very idiosyncratic gloss on the whole question of the swagger portrait. By endowing his sitters with the allegorical connotations of a classical or mythological character, he gave them an intellectual respectability which glamour alone could not claim (no.36). Perhaps his grandest work is the portrait, not of a monarch, but of a famous tragic actress, Sarah Siddons, throned among clouds like a Prophet from Michelangelo’s Sistine ceiling — or like Van Dyck’s Countess of Southamp- ton. She represents, not Fortune but, appropriately, the Tragic Muse (no.37). Meanwhile, Thomas Gainsborough (1727-88), a very different temperament from Reynolds, believed that ‘the principal beauty and intention’ of portraiture was ‘likenesses’. The rest was distraction. His lively portrait of the dancer Giovanna Baccelli (no.42) has a certain bravura, but that is in the very nature of the theatrical subject. More typically, he framed his own interpreta- tion of the Van Dyck tradition by concentrating on fluent brushwork and the sparkling play of light on rich drapery, rendered with virtuoso skill. But his delight in people for their own sake often intervenes in a typically English way to make the image a personal expression of feeling far removed from the public gestures of the grand manner. In his famous double portrait of Mr and Mrs Hallett (no.43) his sitters become actors in a gentle pastoral idyll. There Sir Thomas Lawrence Catherine Gray, lady Manners I 794 (no. 5 I) is a kind of nostalgia for the elegant flier c/Jampétre: of Watteau, as though Gainsborough were celebrating the all too evanescent youth of the couple. THE ROMANTIC PORTRAIT Thanks largely to the robust inventive- ness of Reynolds and the technical assurance of Gainsborough, by the end of the eighteenth century the native school was sufficiently confident and experienced to originate its own panache. The youthful virtuosity of Thomas Lawrence (1769-1830) injected a new energy into the tradition. Like Gainsbor- ough, Lawrence could paint with bravura brilliance, and he deliberately heightened the glitter of his thickly impasted white highlights to give his portraits as much brio as possible (no. 5 1). But he also possessed a dignity, a weight, that owed more to Reynolds, and it was this that enabled him to become the leading painter of the age of George IV. Indeed, with his innate mastery of swagger, he became the first British artist with a truly international reputation. He it was who travelled Europe after Waterloo, painting the portraits of the victorious generals, endowing them with all the heroic glamour he was capable of. His enormous portrait of the Duke of Wellington on horseback, as he appeared at Waterloo (no. 5 5), illustrates the extent to which Lawrence could be grandiose when he chose. Yet he could approach the Queen of England herself (no. 50), on his first important commission at the age of twenty, in a spirit of gentle and sympa- thetic intimacy that is wholly disarming, and asserts more strikingly perhaps than any other work the overwhelming national preference for character over mere display. Lawrence had, of course, many followers and imitators, but the greatest of his contemporaries was a master in a very different idiom, and from a background ill-suited to the formation of a swagger portrait painter. Henry Raeburn (1756-1823) embodied all the phlegmatic reserve of a Lowland Scot: his life was largely spent in recording the sober worth of Edinburgh society. But he brought to this task a natural sense of dramatic lighting and dignified presenta- tion that makes many of his simplest pictures, for all their sobriety, romanti- cally grand. His answer to Lawrence’s Wellington is seen in a work like the dignified and serious picture of Sir William Maxwell of Calderwood with his horse (no.47). When he painted Highland clansmen — who were often Catholics — in their plaids, he responded with sympathy to their eccentric personalities and produced works of unforgettable power and decorative strength (no.46). VICTORIAN VALUES There were proportionately many fewer foreign portrait painters at work in Britain by the early nineteenth century: it was no longer so necessary to import talent. Even so, the period was punctu- ated by the advent of significantly influential foreign artists. By 1850 the impulse supplied by Lawrence had largely petered out, and his unrivalled brand of swagger was being reproduced somewhat tepidly by another Scot, Sir Francis Grant (1803-78), whose directness and lack of glamour suited most British clients at a time when the worldwide responsibilities of the British Empire were beginning to be taken very seriously indeed. The Reform Act of 1832 had given constitutional reality to a gradual drift in the culture of the whole country towards a broader democracy, and even the royal family reflected the new dominance of middle-class values. But Queen Victoria (no.57) and her German Consort, Prince Albert (no.59), were still highly conscious of their exclusive position. In the 1840s and 18 505 their court painter was the Munich- trained Franz Xaver Winterhalter (1805-73), who rose effortlessly above the tired conventions of his English contemporaries to create some of the most sumptuous images of the time (no.6o). But by the 1860s the younger British artists were returning to the European sources for their inspiration: George Frederic Watts (1817-1904) and Frederic Leighton (1830-96), both reluctant portraitists, openly celebrated the Venetians and Florentines in their work (nos.58, 61). John Everett Millais (1829-96), who had begun his career as founder-member of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, turned in the decades of his success to society portraiture, painting the administrative classes of the period. Sober-suited politicians and financiers did not demand much swagger, but there was room for decorative adventure when painting their elegantly attired wives and daughters (nos.63, 64). Millais’s technique, no longer the careful meticulousness of his early days, was now a reincarnation of Hogarthian vigour, with some debt to Velasquez, whose work had been discovered by the British in the years after the Napoleonic Wars. Philip Alexius de Laszlé Arc/7bis}Jop Randall Dzwizzitoii 1 9 2 6 (no. 7 9) GRAND FINALE When Winterhalter and Millais were succeeded in the 1890s by the American John Singer Sargent (1 8 56-1 92 5), the world had changed again. Prince Albert was dead, and the Queens interest in painting, always limited, had died too. Patronage was firmly in the hands of the bourgeoisie — a new, extremely rich bourgeoisie benefiting from the golden years of the British Empire. Sargent, born in Florence and with Parisian training, again offered a glamour that native artists hardly matched. Sargent’s sophisticated art alluded to Van Dyck without imitating him (nos.68, 70). Its slickness breathed effortless elegance. He could supply family portraits redolent of the great country house for those who lacked them (no.67). The meteoric appearance of Giovanni Boldini (1842-1931) at the turn of the century further emphasised the difference between native inspiration and imported sparkle (no.72). Sargent and, still more, his train of followers, came under another potent influence - that of James McNeill Whistler (1 8 3 4-1 90 3). Whistler’s admiration of Japanese prints prompted him to experiment with a simplified style that is almost pattern-making - ‘art for art’s sake’ - emphasising subtly differentiated colour and tone rather than character or morality. The work of the early twentieth-century portraitists William Orpen (1878-1931), John Lavery (1 8 56-1 941) and Augustus John (1878-1961) depends on both, stressing the sweep of long vertical lines and the play of bright colours against black or grey (no.73). But in ]ohn’s work there is already a bohemian strand, a rebellious informality that will not allow the poses and pretensions of swagger to interfere in his direct statement of personality and mood. His great ‘Madame Suggia’ (no.77), carried away as it is by its theme of creative genius, is a rare exception. With the Hungarian-born Philip de Laszlo (1869-1937) the tradition of grand portraiture comes to a bravura conclu- sion, in which everything is dependent on skilfully handled paint, and a bold, flattering assumption that the sitter - duchess, diplomat or dean - is a ‘star’. De Laszl6’s spectacular portrait of Archbishop Randall Davidson (no.79) is perhaps the only truly swagger ecclesiastical portrait in the history of the Anglican Church. Harking back to the Countess of Southampton and Mrs Siddons on their cloud-borne thrones, it invokes a long tradition of both state and theatrical portraiture, but breaks what might almost be seen as a taboo in treating a Protestant religious leader with such glamour. The limits of swagger break down here; the form becomes, in a sense, meaningless. The line of inspiration from Van Dyck comes to an end, just as the line of great country houses ends with Lutyens in the 19305. The Second World War ushered in a new society with a new View of how portraiture could serve it. Andrew Wilton Keeper of the British Collection /L»—:,7J"J91‘*‘l‘1°’~‘")so;;. owl K;-A LIST or WORKS , , A we M, «L1 J~m."1.r Ix ,_t.2_,.,._,L 505211) '[L4_ .,,,_.-~~;._~,. \_,.;L,:u-ex o**\. Ci; Z3 \ yv-vr-= l..».~.»<.s\Qr».}~.A3. _,..tu;. ct» GS \.M .1‘ .—-3 r$~:.>s"»-L1.-tat) l-.4 5'4“ - ~1-0" M 3 /b_l7____,\Vl'1:_u',._;/9 kJ*'v\~D-d LIOJQ »\,,.,_ ,lb<.¢ ‘l I-l. 3,94...)-.5 QC. .1: Lug.) «'—r\-o~3,.n-u (_ALe5.$ 18 Sir Godfrey Kneller 28 Pompeo Batoni 17o8-1787 2'-r-\mr—\ u.\~«n.nr-xrasm Qo'..\.i.>R iikgxg, '\~ -*H;_L;- r6‘3-\ 1;» Measurements are given in Oil on canvas 149.9 >< 127 centimetres followed by inches in (59 X 50) Elizabeth Pelbam, First Wife George Lucy 1758 brackets; height before width. Tate Gallery. Purchased 1888 of Charles, 2nd Viscount Oil on canvas 132 x 97 . . Townsbend c.1698 (52 x 381/1) 1 sir Anthon Van D Ck 9 }/1321211313; gdjszog M” C 16 Oil on canvas 241 X 148 Charlecote, The Lucy Y Y . ’ 7 ' 43 (9474 X 58%) Collection (The National ‘599"64‘ 011°“ “an” 142 * 12° Private Collection Trust) Queen Henrietta Maria and her (557/3 X 47) Dwarf Sir jeflrey Hudson c.1633 University of Manchester, 19 Jacob de Wet 1640-1697 29 Pompeo Batoni Oil on canvas 228.6 x 129 Tabley House Collection jobn, zst Marquis of At/Joll T/Jomas William Coke, later (90 >< 51) . c.1680 1st Earl of Leicester 1774 The Trustees of the Rt Hon. 10 IS_11er7ZPetI‘_3I1~aI§;e1‘}/7.mI0§¢I’18l_—I68O Oil on canvas 240.4 x 167.5 Oil on canvas 241.9 x 167.5 Olive, Countess Fitzwilliairfs Coflgu 3] ‘ind My Wife (96 X 66) (96% x 67) Chattels Settlement, by Tbeodoxgca 61 I66 I_’2 His Grace the Duke of Viscount Coke and the permission of Lady Juliet Oil on Can‘/is I 2 2 X 180 Atholl, Blair Castle, Trustees of the Holkham de Chair 4 ' '5 Perthshire Estate (56 X 711/2) 2 Sir Anthony Van Dyck The Earl of Clarendon, 20 Jonathan Richardson 30 Pompeo Batoni Venetia Stanley, Lady Dzgly, on loan to Plymouth City c. 1665-1745 George Gordon, Lord Haddo as Prudence 163 3 Museum and Art Gallery Edward and Constantia Rolt 177 5 Oil on canvas 101.1 x 80.2 . (.1695 Oil on canvas 259 X 170.2 11 S P L 1 . (39% x 311/2) Hl;a:.:}erISteVZ_C0zlnt Oil on canvas 167.5 x 122 (102 x 67) National Portrait Gallery T I /7’ d I66 (66 X 48) The National Trust for . Ilwm en 2 Mrs Kitty Lemos Scotland, Haddo House, 3 Sir Anthony Van Dyck Oil on canvas 22 1 X 129.9 Aberdeenshire Tbomas Wentwortb, Is! Earl (87 x 511/3) \21 John Closterman 1660-171 1 of Straflord 1633-6 National Museum of Wales, T/ye Cbildren of jo/an Taylor of 31 Tilly Kettle 1734/ 5-1786 Oil on canvas 229.9 x 142.9 Cardiff Bzfrons Park, Kent c.1696 Indy F rances Harpur and ber (901/2 X 56%) . Oil on canvas 189.8 x 271 Son Henry c. 1766 The Trustees of the Rt Hon. 12 §:ll;lf:::t:l;,£'1‘;£_>r7: Ducbw (74361 X 107) _ 051011 C3I1V3S 242 >< 153 Olive, Countess Etzwilliarrfs ofclewhmd 6 £66 _ 0 National Portrait Gallery (951/4 X 60%) Chattels Settlement, by Oil on Canvas" 12557 7X 100 6 22 John C105 terman Calke Abbey, The Harpur- permission of Lady Juliet (49% X 39,/2) ' ' Portrait ofan Unidentified Man Crevve Collection (The de Chair The Earl Bathurst C I702_5 National Trust) 4 Sir Anthony Van Dyck . Oil on canvas 208.3 X 146 32 Francis Cotes 1726-1770 \ Lucy Percy, Countess of Carlisle 13 ]Sal;eP§it;IJ;:iyDucbm >< 57(1:/2)“ I giggly 5Z“”(’0PeDa.”d Lad; [J c.1637 ’ rivate 0 ection ng am as zana an er Oil on canvas 218.4 x 127 0f.N07f0lk £’I677 . . . Companion c.1768 Oil on canvas 230 x 139.7 23 Giuseppe Grisoni 1699-1769 . (86 X 50) . Oil on canvas 281 >< 183 (901/2 X 5 5) Colley Czbber as Lord 1 The Trustees of the Rt Hon’ His Grace the Duke of Foppin tan 30 1725 (I I0 /2)? 72) Olive, Countess Fitzwillia1n’s Norfolk Oil Ongcanvég 127 X 102 York City Art Gallery Chatlelsi Settlement’ by (50 X 401/3) 33 Johan Zoffany 1733-1810 pernussion of Lady Juliet 14 Jacob Huysmans Garrick Club Mrs W00“./my C1770 de Cha“ 81633-6‘ 1696 Oil on canvas 243 8 >< 165 1 . . . h _ . . Olivia, Wife of Endymion Porter Oil n Canvas 2 8 X 5 7 Oil on Canvas 2 X I Tate Gallery. Presented by e. 1637 7 ,3 X 8) 3 473 ( X 8) 39 475 Dr D.M. McDonald 1977 O11°“°“‘“V”“35'9 X 1°67 4P 5‘ F T iii 5 C F d t 34 si h aR n lds 1/2 X 2) e7 OWIS .state rustees, omas orain oun a ion 1 J05 u ey 0 (5 .3 4 Powis Castle, on loan to the for Children 1723-1792 HIS Grace the Duke of National Trust William Augustus, Duke of Northumberland 25 Thomas Hudson 1701-1779 15 h M’ h 1 we ht Admiral so C/Jaloner 0 le C“’’‘’’”1‘’’’‘’ ‘"1765 6 Sir Anthony Van Dyck J21: 161:4“ lg I740 g Oil on canvas 254 >< 190 A Lad asErmz'nia, Attended _ . ' . (100 X 74%) by Cugid C. 163 8 A Lady in Masquerade Costume Cgihpn canyas 212.7 X 144.7 The Duke of Devonshire and Oil on canvas 10 .2 >< 12 .' £1.67‘) ( 4 X 57 . the Chatsworth Settlement ( X 51) 9 9 3 Oil on canvas 212.1 x 148.6 Private Collection Trustees 43 . His Grace the Duke of lgriiz/sit: Cal/lzgction 26 Thomas Hudson 35 Sir Joshua Re nolds Marlborough Mary Panton, Duo/Jess of . y t 16 h M. h 1 W . ht A “we I T/yree ladies Adornzng a Term 7 Sir Anthony Van Dyck l.:rd1M 1; ajllurrrizg c 1688 Oil on icani/it: 2 X 1 (fHymm I773_4 Raebel de Ruvigny, Countess Oil ntaiias H 3;; I ( Y ) 39 37 Oil on canvas 2337 X 290.8 0fSoutbam/Iron as Fortuna ° “'1' " 5“ 94. 54 (92 X 1 14‘/'1) ’ (881/2 >< 60%) Grimsthorpe and Drurnmond 81638 Sc ttish National Portrait Castle Trust Tate Gallery‘ Bequeathed by Oil on canvas 219.5 x 133 G (:1 the Earl of Blessington 1837 (36% X 523/8) 3 Cry 27 A1111“ Ramsay 17I3‘I784 36 Sirloshua R6Yl1olds The Syndics of the 17 Sir Godfrey Kneller Norman, ‘T/Je Red Man’, 22nd . . . . Mrs Musters as Hebe 1785 Fitzwilliam Museum, 1646/9-1723 Clntf of MacLeod 1748 . . . Oil on canvas 238.8 x 147.8 Cambridge C/Jarles II 1685 Oil on canvas 223.5 x 137.2 (94 X 58%) 8 William Dobson Oil on canvas 224.7 X 142.8 (88 >< 54) The Iveagh Bequest’ 1610/11-1646 (881/2 X 56%) Dunvegan Castle, Isle of . P 6 National Museums and Skye, by kind permission of Endymum 0”” Q1 40_3 Galleries on Merseyside, John MacLeod of MacLeod Walker Art Gallery the 29th Chief Kenwood (English Heritage) 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Sir Joshua Reynolds Mrs Siddons as the Tragic Muse 1789 Oil on canvas 239.7 >< 147.6 (943/8 X 58%) The Governors of Dulwich Picture Gallery Sir Joshua Reynolds George Augustus Eliott, Lord Heathfield 1788 Oil on canvas 142.2 >< 113.7 (55 X 44%) The Trustees of the National Gallery Thomas Gainsborough 172 7-1 788 john Campbell, 4th Duke of Argyll 1767 Oil on canvas 231 X 153.7 (91 X 601/2) Scottish National Portrait Gallery Thomas Gainsborough Augustus john, 3rd Earl of Bristol 1768 Oil on canvas 232.5 X 152.5 (911/2 x 60) Ickworth, The Bristol Collection (The National Trust) Thomas Gainsborough George, Prince of Wales 0. 1782 Oil on canvas 246.5 >< 177.7 (97 X 70) The Marquess of Zetland Thomas Gainsborough Giovanna Baccelli 1782 Oil on canvas 226.7 X 148.6 (89% X 581/2) Tate Gallery. Purchased 1975 Thomas Gainsborough Mr and Mrs Hallett (‘The Morning Walk’) 1 7 8 5 Oil on canvas 236.2 X 179.1 (93 X 701/2) The Trustees of the National Gallery Purchased with a contribution from from the National Art Collections Fund John Singleton Copley 1 7 3 8-1 8 1 5 The Three Youngest Daughters ofGeorge III 1785 Oil on canvas 2655 X 186 (I041/2 X 731/4) Her Majesty The Queen Sir William Beechey 175 3-1839 George IV -when Prince of Wales c. 1 798 Oil on canvas 139.7 X 116 (55 X 451/2) Royal Academy of Arts, London Sir Henry Raeburn 1 7 5 6-1 8 2 3 Sirjohn Sinclair Bt 1794 Oil on canvas 238 >< 154 (931/2 >< 601/2) National Gallery of Scotland Sir Henry Raeburn General Sir William Maxwell of Calderwood Bt c.1796 Oil on canvas 249 >< 148 (98 X 58%) The National Trust for Scotland, Fyvie Castle, Aberdeenshire 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Sir Henry Raeburn Spencer, 2nd Marquess of Northampton 182 1 Oil on canvas 128 X 100.5 (501/2 X 391/2) The Marquess of Northampton Sir Henry Raeburn The Marchioness of Northamp- ton, Playing a Harp c. 1820 Oil on canvas 128 X 101.5 (501/2 X 40) The Marquess of Northampton Sir Thomas Lawrence 1769-1 8 30 Queen Charlotte 1789-90 Oil on canvas 238.4 X 147.3 (937/8 X 58) The Trustees of the National Gallery Sir Thomas Lawrence Catherine Gray, Lady Manners 1794 Oil on canvas 255.3 >< 158 (1001/2 >< 621/i) The Cleveland Museum of Art. Bequest of John D. Rockefeller, Jr Sir Thomas Lawrence john Philip Kemble as Hamlet 1801 Oil on canvas 306.1 >< 198.1 (1201/2 X 78) Tate Gallery. Presented by King William IV 1836 Sir Thomas Lawrence Mrs Siddons 1 803-4 Oil on canvas 254 X 148 (100 X 581/4) Tate Gallery. Presented by Mrs C. FitzHugh 1843 Sir Thomas Lawrence Lady Elizabeth Foster, later Duchess of Devonshire, as a Sibyl 1805 Oil on canvas 240 X 148 (941/2 X 581/1) The National Gallery of lreland Sir Thomas Lawrence The Duke of Wellington Mounted on Copenhagen as at Waterloo 1818 Oil on canvas 3962 X 243.8 (156 X 96) The Earl Bathurst James Sant 1820-1916 Captain Colin Mackenzie 1842 Oil on canvas 237 >< 145 (931/1 X 571/2) National Army Museum, London, courtesy of the Director Sir Francis Grant 1803-1878 Queen Victoria 1843 Oil on canvas 243.8 X 147.3 (96 X 58) Crown Estate on loan to the Institute of Directors George Frederic Watts 1 8 1 7-1 904 Augusta, Lady Castletown c. 1 846 Oil on canvas 208.3 >< 143.5 (82 x 561/2) Tate Gallery. Bequeathed by Major W.R.D. Mackenzie 1952 61 62 63 64 65 67 69 Franz Xaver Winterhalter 1 805-1 873 Prince Albert 1846 Oil on canvas 237.5 >< 147.5 (931/2 X 58) The Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, Lady Lever Art Gallery Franz Xaver Winterhalter Lady Middleton 1863 Oil on canvas 239 X 147.5 (94 X 58) The Hon. Michael Willoughby Frederic Lord Leighton 1830-1896 Mrs james Guthrie I86 5 Oil on canvas 210.7 X 138.5 (83 X 541/2) Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection Jacques—Joseph (James) Tissot 1836-1902 Colonel Frederick Gustavus Burnaby 1870 Oil on panel 49.5 >< 59.7 (1 91/2 >< 2 3 1/2) National Portrait Gallery Sir John Everett Millais I 829-1 896 Hearts Are Trumps 1872 Oil on canvas 165.7 x 219.7 (65 1/» >< 861/2) Tate Gallery. Presented by the Trustees of the Chantrey Bequest 1945 Sir John Everett Millais Mrs Bisehofisheim 1873 Oil on canvas 130.8 x 90.2 (511/2 X 351/2) Tate Gallery. Presented by Lady Fitzgerald 1944 John Singer Sargent 1 8 56-192 5 Ellen Terry as Lady Macbeth 1889 Oil on canvas 221 x 114.3 (87 X 45) Tate Gallery. Presented by Sir Joseph Duveen 1906 John Singer Sargent W. Graham Robertson 1894 Oil on canvas 230.5 x 118.7 (90% >< 463/4) Tate Gallery. Presented by W. Graham Robertson 1940 John Singer Sargent Mrs Carl Meyer and her Children 1896 Oil on canvas 201.4 x 134 (791/4 X 521/») Private Collection John Singer Sargent Ena and Betty Wertheimer 1901 Oil on canvas 185.4 >< 130.8 (73 X 511/2) Tate Gallery. Presented by the widow and family of Asher Wertheimer in accordance with his wishes 1922 John Singer Sargent Mrs Cazalet and her Children e. 1900 Oil on canvas 254 >< 165.1 (100 X 65) Private Collection 10 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 John Singer Sargent Almina, Daughter of Asher Wertheimer 1908 Oil on canvas 134 X 101 (5 2% X 39%) Tate Gallery. Presented by the widow and family of Asher Wertheimer in accordance with his wishes 1922 Solomon Joseph Solomon 1860-1927 Mrs Patrick Campbell as ‘Paula Tanqueray’ 1894 Oil on canvas 241.3 >< 152.5 (95 X 60) The Arts Club Giovanni Boldini 1 842-1931 Lady Colin Campbell 5. 1897 Oil on canvas 182.2 X 117.5 (7 13/4 >< 461/4) National Portrait Gallery Sir William Orpen 1 878-193 1 Mrs St George c.1912 Oil on canvas 216 X 119.5 (85 X 47) Jefferson Smurfit Group plc Sir William Orpen Lady Rocksavage 1913 Oil on canvas 121.9 x 95.3 (48 X 371/2) Private Collection Sir John Lavery 18 56-1941 Hazel in Black and Gold 1916 Oil on canvas 183.4 >< 92.3 (72% X 36%) Laing Art Gallery, Newcastle upon Tyne (Tyne and Wear Museums) Augustus Edwin John 1878-1961 William Nicholson 1909 Oil on canvas 190 X 145.3 (75 X 57) The Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge Augustus Edwin John Madame Suggia 1920-3 Oil on canvas 186.7 X 165.1 (731/2 X 65) Tate Gallery. Presented by Lord Duveen through the National Arts Collection Fund 192 5 Philip Alexius de Laszlo 1869-1937 Countess Fitzwilliam, Wife of the 7th Earl Fitzwilliam 1911 Oil on canvas 243.9 >< 119.4 (96 X 47) The Trustees of the Rt Hon. Olive, Countess Fitzwilliam’s Chattels Settlement, by permission of Lady Juliet de Chair Philip Alexius de Laszlo Archbishop Randall Davidson 1926 Oil on canvas 251.5 X 139.7 (99 X 55) The Corporation of the Church House Published by Tate Gallery Publications, Millbank, London sw IP 4RG © Tate Gallery 1992 All rights reserved Typeset and printed in Great Britain by Status Graphics, London