Some Tudor Portraits at the Royal Academy Author(s): Erna Auerbach Source: The Burlington Magazine, Vol.

99, No. 646 (Jan., 1957), pp. 8-11+13 Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/871986 . Accessed: 01/05/2011 04:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Burlington Magazine.

http://www.jstor.org

FLEMISH

PAINTINGS

AT

BRUGES

royal dignity of Rubens' lions. Removal of the dark background, added later, may not only be an improvement, but may help finally to settle the question. There is no need to quarrel about the attribution to Rubens of the other paintings, all of which were shown in one or other of the recent great Rubens exhibitions. It remains only to add that the sketches for the Whitehall ceiling, including the one from the collection of Col. R. H. Davies shown here (74), appear in a new light since the discovery of the extraordinary first sketch for the complete ceiling by Mr Oliver Millar32 and since the publication of Dr Per Palme's most exciting new interpretation. -Among the twelve paintings by Van Dyck, there were only portraits, except for the Ecce Homo (86) acquired recently by the Barber Institute at the sale of the Marquess of Linlithgow to (a composition closely related to the etching The Reed offered Christ). This painting, well known from Burlington House, is an authentic Van Dyck, though it is missing from Gltick's Klassiker der Kunst volume. The same is true of the Tomaso Raggi (84), lent by the Mount Trust, and not previously exhibited, a typical portrait from the Italian period, in technique and posture fairly close to the Dulwich Emanuel
a2 O. MILLAR: pp.258 fT. 88 P. PALME:

Philibert of Savoy, and of the very delicate half-length of a Man, in grey-white and gold (92a, Lord Barnard), from the late English period. A portrait of Charles II as a Boy (91, Welbeck Abbey) not seen at previous exhibitions, but reproduced by Glack (p.388), is probably an original, though not Van Dyck at his most inspired. Two more portraits not exhibited for a long time were the most effective full-length

of a Ladyof the Vinck Family(?), lent by the Countess Mountbatten of Burma (85), one of the largest and most ambitious attempts in this field before the Italian journey, and the so-called 'AntwerpSenator'(88, Welbeck Abbey), in fact more probably an Italian, and painted in the Italian period rather than during the second Antwerp stay, in which Gluick and Professor Van Puyvelde place it.

The famous Madonna enthroned betweenSt Louis and St

Margaret from Ince Blundell Hall (30) stood out, as it did in London in 1953-4, as a 'foreign body' among all the Flemish pictures. Like Dr Rothel,34 I am convinced that this is a French picture. Stylistic, iconographic, and partly also historical reasons point to France as the country of its origin. It would, however, exceed the limits of a review and take too long to expound them here in detail and to substantiate this claim, which is not a new one. This must be left for another occasion.
84 ROTHEL, op.

'The Whitehall Ceiling',

THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, XCVIII

[1956],

Triumphof Peace: A Studyof the WhitehallBanquetingHouse, Stock-

holm [i956].

cit., p.90.

ERNA

AUERBACH

Some

Tudor

Portraits at

the

Royal

Academy

IN this winter's Academy 'Exhibition of British Portraits', the first two rooms on the right, Galleries XI and X, are devoted to the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. A most interesting selection can be seen; stress has been lain on fine quality and on the fact that the paintings have not recently at least during the last ten years - been shown in London. The latter ruling had in some cases to be disregarded. The result is a show that does not attempt to be complete nor to give a full survey of the development of portraiture from 1500 to, let us say, I620. That aim was better fulfilled by the memorable exhibition of 'Holbein and other Masters' in 1950-1. As it is, we have to fill in the gaps by our memory of the well-known pictures, if we propose to attempt a reconstruction of the whole period. But each portrait, judged as an isolated object, speaks its own forceful language and conveys to us a clear impression of what was actually commissioned by royalty and people of standing in these Islands. Some of the portraits were ordered from foreign artists here or abroad, but all the sitters were British and most of the pictures were retained in houses in this country. Some at least must therefore have been known to the contemporary artist working here. It was a surprise to observe, especially in the first room, how much of the general stream of art, of Mannerism in its various forms, had in fact been introduced into artistic life in this country by the middle of the century or shortly afterwards. Not that this makes it any easier to attribute pictures to individual artists - the most difficult and dangerous task

at this moment of the history of British art - but aided by the excellent and careful catalogue entries, compiled by Mr David Piper who was responsible for this part of the exhibition, we can now at least distinguish more clearly between different influences that reached these shores, with the result that the general view of English painting in this period has slightly shifted and has to be reviewed anew. The portrait of John Bourchier, 2nd Lord Berners, attributed to Mabuse (No.4), hits us in the eye as being distinctly Flemish with its soft, but realistic modelling and the gesture of the speaking hand. This painting has not been shown since 1868. The suggestion that it may have been painted in Calais, where Lord Berners was acting as Deputy from 1520-33, is of interest, since we know there were close artistic ties with the Netherlands and in one case a painter of Ghent is mentioned' as having painted a portrait of Henry VIII for a stained glass window in Calais. The post-Holbein style is well exemplified by various pictures. Sir Peter Carew by Flicke (No.5) is perhaps less impressive when we remember the signed and dated Lord Grey de Wilton (?) (1547) by the same artist from the Holbein Exhibition.2 But William, Ist LordPaget (No.6), by an unknown artist, is immediately arresting. It is an over life-size three-quarter-length figure in an almost frontal pose, with broad shoulders, wearing an impressively wide fur-lined coat, a long full beard, and the usual horizontal cap of the late
1

E. AUERBACH:

TudorArtists [1954], p.28. One thinks of Gerard Horenbout. Reproduced on pl.I I, THEBURLINGTON MAGAZINE [February 1951].

...
In
BE%'

Al,
m low

"I
ME
@
M?

..........

IN oil
"Wh!

No

Ig"

t2
10

V:o

1A

. :%
: : : . _

_A

ll,;

and-

Am

04
I s~i~i kii~ ki~~i

old,

EM

:x

?s

SOW,

. .
6. Mildred, Lady Burghley,by Hans Eworth. Panel, 105 by 79 cm. (Marquess of Salisbury.)

5. QueenElizabeth I, attributed to Federico Zuccari. Canvas, 125 by 92 cm. (Pinacoteca, Siena.)

ii-iiiii: iiiili.............i ii i~i

f~x t

.
W i

jiiii~i

:~_~iiii~ri 00 ci 7z _:-:,?-i-::: :
:::::low

.
I

.....
toy::

lot!

Fitton (?), by an unknown artist. Canvas, Io9 by 87 cm. (Mr F. 7. Mmry Fitzroy-Newdegate.)

8. Portraitof a Woman,attributed to John Bettes II. Signed 'I.B.' and dated 1587. Panel, 95 by 77 cm. (St Olave's Grammar School.)

SOME

TUDOR

PORTRAITS

AT

THE

ROYAL

ACADEMY

forties. Within the picture frame there is plenty of space round the standing figure to enhance the importance and monumental effect of the portrait. While the face and reddish beard are painted in a soft painterly manner, a precisely drawn 'George' and the hands, especially that with the scroll, bring some relief to the otherwise dark colouring. This picture, which has not been exhibited before, gives ample proof of the self-assured attitude of the English sitter. QueenMary I, attributed to Guillim Scrots (No.I o), is an as far as we now know it. It is interesting addition to his oeuvre exhibited for the first time3 and is, in the present state of our knowledge, the only full-length standing portrait of a woman that can very well compare with his Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, at Parham Park. The whole conception, the background, the colouring, and treatment of figure and surroundings is very similar, and the attribution to Scrots is most plausible. The drawn-out features of Mary's face (if it is Mary) are near in style to CatherineParr which has been ascribed to the manner of the same artist4 and the latter attribution thus receives a welcome corroboration. Two portraits (Nos.I I and 13) hanging in the immediate vicinity of Holbein's Sir Nicholas Carew (No. 14) belong to the group of works, as yet not disentangled, which must have been painted by his own studio successors. They are the UnknownWoman(No.13; Fig. 12) close in style to an Unknown Womanin the Fitzwilliam Collection at Milton Park,5 and of very good quality, and ClementNewce, who received, in the year before his portrait was painted, two royal grants of land (1544).6 This excellent portrait is here ascribed to the Master of the 1540's. It is close to Holbein and I do not think an attribution to the Flemish painter who used harder contrasts can be maintained. The decorative element in the painting of the two coats of arms, with a touch of red and gold on the background wall, speaks rather for the assumption that it was painted in this country. We now approach Hans Eworth who is, as he was in 1950-1, very well represented. The signed and dated Thomas Wyndham(No. 17) and Sir John Luttrell (No. 18) of 1550 give a clear account of a first phase of Mannerism in the accumulation of objects and allegorical motifs in the background which compete with the actual portrait for our attention without, however, detracting from its strength. We can now add the image of a third imposing gentleman, Vaughan of Tretower, Wardenof the Marches (No.16; Fig.i i), dated I560, which, I think, can be linked with this group and ascribed to Eworth with confidence. Especially interesting, because not previously exhibited, is the penetrating portrait of Mildred, Lady Burghley(No.27; Fig.6), which must have been painted in the late sixties. It belongs to the period when Eworth was already anticipating the over-decorative, often somewhat inflated, style of the typical Elizabethan portrait. The portrait of her husband William Cecil, Ist Baron Burghley (No.26), which has recently been cleaned, is most impressive and, though different in manner from Eworth, points again to a Flemish artist working in this country. It is closely connected with a miniature called Ambrose Dudley, Earl of Warwick- the oil portrait was also known under this
MAGAZINE [June x953], No.43. 4 Repr. THEBURLINGTON in Painting Britain, 1530-I790, p.Io, pl.6a. 6 E. K. WATERHOUSE: 6 L. & P., xxx, pt.I, Nos.6Io and Io035,PP.385 and 639. IO
S Repr. by A. OSWALD,Country Life, cxv [1x954].

name - in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch, which according to Sir Basil Long's notes was formerly attributed to Isaac Oliver but may be by a foreign artist. It is equal in quality to the life-size picture and looks like a miniature version by the same hand. Mention is made in the catalogue of the exhibition of a later variant of the oil portrait at Hatfield which is signed with monogram 'AB 1573'. One thinks immediately of Arnold or Arthur van Brounckhurst, who is known to have painted miniatures and oil paintings at exactly that period. Only a short time ago the bust portrait of Oliver, Ist Baron St John of Bletso, which appeared under the name of 'Key' at Christie's (27th May 1955, Lot 19), could be definitely assigned to Brounckhurst on the strength of an unmistakably identical nineteenth-century water-colour copy by G. P. Harding in the National Portrait Gallery. On this it is stated that it was taken from'the original by AL. Bronckorst. (?) 1578. at Melchbourn House Beds.' This fortunate find has, however, vanished again, and after it was cleaned and a signature found so it is reported it has passed into the of an unknown private owner. Even the photograph hands taken before cleaning can therefore not be reproduced. We have nevertheless gained some ground since the style of this portrait, even in its uncleaned condition, closely conforms to that of two portraits of James Douglas, 4th Earl of Morton, Regent of Scotland during the minority of James VI, in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery (Nos.839 and L.i io). In particular, the imposing, Flemish-looking three-quarterlength of the Regent can now be ascribed to this painter with some confidence. Again, the attractive but slightly rubbed portrait of James VI as a boy, in the same Gallery of which - can be associated many versions, some in miniature, exist with this group. We know from documents that Brounckhurst became Court painter to James VI in I58o and received payments for several portraits.' Reverting to the Lord Burleighin the exhibition: more research will have to be done before we can make a definite attribution, but it is not altogether unlike these portraits. Here is a case where some hope arises that one day the personality of an artist so far only known from documents, will finally emerge with an euvre. It is valuable to be able to study in the same room, two attributed to Marcus portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, one Gheeraerts the Elder (No.15), the other to Federico Zuccari not been seen in London (No.i9; Fig.5). The former has never been exhibited outside Italy. since 1926, the latter has In both cases the originals appear different from what one expected to see from the study of the photographs alone. To judge by the costumes they are close in date to each other: about 1585. The portrait from Welbeck Abbey is, I think, a few years later than that from Siena which might be dated c.1582. The figure at Welbeck wears a richly embroidered white and light grey dress, and is framed by a patterned carpet matching her coat (in the foreground), and by a strong red in the sword of state and the chair. The courtier on the right very much resembles one of the gentlemen carrying Elizabeth's litter on her Visit to Blackfriars. For this reason, and because of the Queen's rather sinuous pose, I am inclined to regard it as an early work of Gheeraerts the Younger. This
for documentary evidence. 7 Cf. AUERBACH: TudorArtists,pp.117, 151, and 152, R. I shall discuss the above question at more length on a later occasion. Mr showed me the pictures in his care, has come to similar conclusions.

Hutchison, Keeper of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, who very kindly
No. L.I Io

is on loan from the Earl of Morton.

aWpV
"r Ii
fil .

lip.
Boi

. .

lil

PYP
. .... ... . ...
lot
C)

.....
eW-

~sm.

.. .......:
sl ---------

I~-X
9. QueenMary I and the Epileptic, by an unknown artist. c.1555. Vellum, 19-7 by 14-7 cm. (Westminster Cathedral.) Io. QueenMary I blessingRings, by an unknown artist. c. I555 Vellum, 19.7 cm. (Westminster Cathedral.) by 14"7

... ....

.. ...
::: : :'::: :: -:-: ::: _iii~:iii::ii:i-i~iiiiiiii --: iiii iili - ii-i i-ii-i-iiii-iii:ii-i' ::iiiiiiii:i:i - :--:::i::::::::: :_:: ii ii:-iii-:-:----:---::::-:::i-- :-:i::-::-:::: :: -::: ::: ::: : ::::: :: :: : -::---: : :::::: -:-:: :::: ::::::: : : :::::::::::::: :: ::: :: ::: :- :::: ; i:::: :::: ::::: : :: :: --:::: :::::::::: ::: ::: :: -:-: :: -:-: -::-:: :::: : : ::: ::: :::: ::: :::::::- -:: ::::::::-:::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::: ::::: ::: :?:: ::;: :: :i-iii :::i-iii:s-i- . ... i _:...: -i-i-i : i- i:: -i:i :: iii:iiiii : : _:: ill!l-I-_-liI:-li:_-i__ :I- II-II -::._:::;-:::--:::: i:--: : : :?:: : ::_: :: : -: : ::::: :i:ii-i-ii-iiii- i: ---: iiiiii?i-i-:i:- -i- i -:: :. i -i-i : - :::--::-- :: : :::: : :: :: --: : : : :: ::--:-- ::: -

V::v:

w-: .

i:

of of Ii. Vaughan Trelower,Warden the Marches,here attributed to Hans

Eworth. Dated 1560 on frame. Panel, 99-5 by 73 cm. (Major J R. H. Harley.)

12. Portrait by ofa Woman, a follower oflHans Hollbein. Panel, 28-8 by 22 (c?m. (Colonel P. R. Davies-Cooke.)

SOME

TUDOR

PORTRAITS

AT

THE

ROYAL

ACADEMY

type of mannerist style inspired by Flanders was well received in this country and is often seen in Isaac Oliver's work.8 The portrait from Siena (Fig.5) is completely different; indeed it differs from all other portraits of the Queen,9 and, for that matter, from all other portraits painted in this country. Admittedly, various versions exist in British collections, but that, for instance, at Holyrood Palace, which is not too well preserved, though repeating the general pattern of the composition, the theme of the sieve, and the Italian mottoes, lacks precisely that spatial and plastic style which transforms the Siena painting into a work truly in the grand manner. Incidentally, the narrow frill ruff on the former indicates an earlier date of origin. The bust version from the Wombwell Collection is nearer in conception to the face of the Queen in the Siena picture but, here again, it has become flat, the ruff is stiffened, and the jewel with the two classical nude figures is copied rather crudely. The North Italian mannerist style ofthe Siena Court portrait had no impact on English painting. Its strange isolation makes it hard to father it on any artist, and for the time being it is reasonable to keep the name of Zuccari in mind in connexion with it, until documentary evidence turns up to enlighten us. Unperturbed by the general stream of art on the Continent the decorative English portrait flowered during the Elizabethan period and some magnificent examples can be seen in Gallery X at Burlington House. I will confine myself to the mention of a few outstanding works: the splendidly dressed Mary Fitton (No.38; Fig.7), a symphony of pink, grey and black, with so much character in her well-modelled face, and the attractive Portrait of a Woman (No.36), fortunately inscribed I.B.1587, which may be assigned to John Bettes II who was working at that time (Fig.8). The gay filigree lace collar, in an intricate flat pattern, is surmounted by an enamel-like face. Here again, we begin to get some impression of the activity of a painter whom we only knew from documents. The same can also be said about the painter Segar to whom, thanks to the researches of Mr Piper, the splendid portrait of the Earl of Essex (No.47) can now be attributed with some assurance. 10 Drawings, illuminations, and the miniatures admirably selected by Mr Graham Reynolds, round off the display of Tudor portraits. A manuscript prayer book showing Queen Mary I kneeling, blessing rings intended to cure
8 E. K. WATERHOUSE: Painting in Britain, Cf. p.29, pl.2oa; I53o-i79o, E. AUERBACH: Tudor Artists, pp.115 and 124. It is signed MGF. 9 E. AUERBACH: 'Portraits of Elizabeth I', THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE [19531, pp.197 ff. 10 D. PIPER:

epilepsy and cramp (No.598; Figs.9 and io), is of great importance as it is surely one of the last examples of religious illuminations of the mid-sixteenth century. In spite of the backgrounds on the two miniatures, in the outmoded, Netherlandish style, the portraits of Mary I and the members of the clergy are of good quality. The surrounding borders contain grotesques, garlands, fabulous animals, and other ornaments belonging to the stock-in-trade of the mannerist limner. The floral decorations are closely related to those adorning the margins of the Indentureof I559 which has the portrait of young Elizabeth I within its initial."1 Three beautiful cameos (Nos.6oI, 602, and 603) are attributed to Richard Astyll. This cutter of precious stones was not, as has recently been suggested, an Italian, but a German, born in 'the diocese of Treves' who was naturalized in 1535-12 He lived in the parish of St Martin's in the Fields where he died in 1565.13 He can therefore hardly have been responsible for the cameo representing Elizabeth, the type of which has to be connected with Hilliard's miniature of I572. As to the miniatures, Mr Reynolds has succeeded in grouping various portraits round that of Henry VIII of I525-6 (No.604) and so at last an wuvrecan be linked with the name of Luke Horenbout. The attribution of this key miniature was first tentatively suggested by Mr Winter, then more clearly defined by Mr Colding; and now we have a series of miniatures which points backwards to the Flemish tradition of manuscript illuminators and forwards to Holbein's and Hilliard's miniature style.14 Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond (No.605), is an especially attractive specimen. Holbein, Hilliard, and Oliver are excellently represented and we can see once more how the highest standard of craftsmanship was reached in English miniature painting during the Tudor and early Jacobean periods. Perhaps the most interesting feature of this part of the exhibition is the juxtaposition of Francois Clouet's Mary Queenof Scots (No.614) and Hilliard's moving miniature of the same sitter from Welbeck Abbey (No.619). While Mary's features on Hilliard's miniature agree iconographically with those painted by Clouet, a strange and delicate shading in white and grey, only relieved by a little red, gives to the work of the English artist an almost visionary character.
11

Cf. E. AUERBACH:

'An Elizabethan Indenture',

THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE,

xcnI, pp.319-23.

12 L. & P.: Henry VIII,vIII [I535], No.481 (20), p.187.

PeriodGuides, Tudor[1956], P.54, pl.28c. Connoisseur

COLDING;

Aspectsof Miniature Painting [1953], Chapter IV; G. noisseur PeriodGuides, Tudor,pp.127-8, plate 69.

13 The Accounts of the Churchwardens, 1525-r6o3 [igoi], p.2i9. 14 Cf. C. WINTER: The British School of Miniature Portrait Painters,

REYNOLDS:

[1948] p.7; Con-

OTTO

KURZ

Rowland
SEVERAL scholarly publications, all of them of recent date, have clarified the history of British painting under the Tudors. Some semi-mythical artists like that prolific English portrait painter 'Zuccaro' are in the process of being liquidated but a number of elusive or shadowy personalities remain. One of them is Rowland Locky who is best known today through his copy after Holbein's lost Family of Sir

Locky
ThomasMore but who enjoyed a certain fame in his own day as is proved by some passages in Elizabethan literature.' Looking up his dates in the current books of reference one learns with surprise that he painted the copy after Holbein in the year 1530, and is mentioned as a living person in a
1

The best and most recent account of R. Locky is contained in E. AUERBACH: TudorArtists[1954], p.175.

13