Portrait Miniatures Part 1

Portrait Miniatures.

by George C. Williamson.

A recent French writer, in referring to the art of portrait painting, exalted it to the highest rank, proclaiming it the greatest of all arts.

He then proceeded, by a series of curious ant.i.thetical sentences, to set forth his opinion of portrait painting, stating that it was at once the oldest and the most modern of arts, the easiest and the most difficult, the simplest and the most abstruse, the clearest and the most subtle.

His statement, it is clear, contained a definite basis of truth, coupled with a certain interesting extravagance of expression. It is quite true that to draw a portrait was the aim of the very earliest of draughtsmen, whether it was that of his companion or of one of the beasts of chase, and whether he carved it on a bone, or daubed it on the wall of his dwelling. The first endeavour, also, of a child, playing with a pencil, or a brush, is to draw a portrait, and the very simplest outline does occasionally reveal that an idea of portraiture is latent in the mind of the young artist. If only simplicity of line is desired, nothing can be more simple, while at the same time nothing is more perfect, than the outline or profile drawing of such a great artist as Holbein, or the work of some of the early French draughtsmen.

At the same time, the subtlety of this draughtsmanship cannot be denied.

For complexity and difficulty, portraiture takes a supreme place, and yet, on the other hand, as the Frenchman points out in his ant.i.thetical sentences, it is to a certain extent a simple art, and we all know artists who are able with a piece of chalk to suggest an even startling likeness which they would be quite unable to complete into the form of a perfect portrait. Many a painter thinks at first that portraiture is simple and easy, in fact he finds it so, but the older he grows, the more does he realise that the human features are complex in the extreme, and that the variations of expression make the difficulties in the task of portraying them enormous. From very early times, however, there has been a natural desire to have portraits of the persons about us, and to have these portraits in portable form; hence, after a long succession of vicissitudes, has come the miniature.

It is perhaps as well, even though the statement has been made over and over again, to emphasize the fact that the actual word miniature has nothing whatever to do with the size of the portrait. We accept it, however, as implying that the portrait is of portable size, and we shall apply it to such a portrait as can lie in the palm of one's hand, ignoring the fact that the word was originally derived from "minium" or red lead, and has come down to us from the little portraits on illuminated ma.n.u.scripts, outlined or bordered with lines of red. In two countries especially, the art of painting miniatures has flourished, England and France, and in these two countries there have been schools of miniature painters, and a succession of great exponents of the art, while in the other countries of Europe there have only been now and again painters who have devoted especial attention to this branch of their art, and have taken high position in it. It is more especially an English art, because, although for exquisite grace, charming colouring, and dainty conception, the works of the French miniature painters take a high rank, even they must yield the palm for representation of character to the greatest English painter of miniatures, Samuel Cooper. Moreover, in no country but England has there been such a long series of painters in miniature, extending from the sixteenth-century down to comparatively recent times.

It has been the fashion to commence a survey of English miniature painters by reference to Holbein, and it is not altogether an unsatisfactory manner in which to start (although Holbein was not an Englishman), because so many of his best works were painted in this country. It must not, however, be forgotten that portrait painting was practised by native English artists in the early part, or at least in the middle, of the fifteenth-century, and although we know very little indeed about these English painters, yet we have many works remaining which must be attributed to them.

It may, moreover, be stated generally that the predecessors and contemporaries of Holbein in miniature work were mostly of foreign extraction, although working in England; such, for example, as Lavina Terlinck and Gw.i.l.l.ym Stretes. We know, however, that certain fourteenth-century ma.n.u.scripts were actually executed in England, by an English artist, and as an example of such work, Mr. Lionel Cust, in his preface to the English Portraiture Exhibition at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, points out the Salisbury Lectionarium, with the portrait of Lord Lovell as its frontispiece, representing him receiving the book from its maker, John Siferwas. He refers also to the even better known portrait of Chaucer, painted by Occlive on the ma.n.u.script now in the British Museum.

There is also no question that the actual art of portrait miniature, such as we understand it at the present day, arose from that of painting portraits on ma.n.u.scripts, and, as we have already pointed out in another place, it may further be derived from the similar portraits attached to treaties and to doc.u.ments handed over to amba.s.sadors. The illumination of a portrait of Francis I. on the ratification of a treaty of peace with England, August 18th, 1527, is a case in point. It represents the French King in excellent fashion, delineating character as well as portraiture, and is the work of a painter of no mean skill and discernment. Similar portraits of Henry VIII., and Philip and Mary, dated 1543 and 1556, and painted in England, are not of such a high character as is the one of Francis, but still are sufficient to enable us to regard them as true portraits, representative of the monarchs as they were. Who first, says Mr. Cust, cut out the portrait in miniature from an illumination, and inserted it in a jewelled or ivory case or picture-box, it is impossible to surmise, but such a caprice, once started, was likely quickly to become popular. Who first gave up the use of vellum for such portraits, and found that a playing card in use at that day was a more convenient material on which to paint, we also do not know; nor who, again, stretched a very fine piece of vellum or chicken-skin upon the playing-card, and used that as his basis, but the earliest Elizabethan miniatures painted in England are done in one of these two methods.

Prominent amongst the names of the Tudor painters stands out that of Hans Holbein the younger, and in the art of composition it is doubtful whether any successor has equalled him in consummate skill. The ill.u.s.tration which we are allowed to give from Mr. Pierpont Morgan's collection, and which represents _Mrs. Pemberton_ (Plate I.), is one of the most astonishing works ever produced by a miniature painter. The figure is so perfectly composed, and so marvellously set within the small compa.s.s of the circle, while the modelling is so subtle and delicate, so refined, and distinguished by such perfection of line and economy of material that it is always a delight to regard it, and no portrait painter would be ashamed to say that he had learned many a lesson from the unerring skill with which this marvellous portrait is produced. It cannot be said that all Holbein's works are on as high a level as is this particular picture, but the two portraits in the possession of the Queen of Holland, one representing a young lady, and the other an older man; the portrait of the painter in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch; the wonderful _Anne of Cleves_ in the collection of the late Mr. George Salting; and the companion one of Henry VIII, in Mr. Pierpont Morgan's cabinet, are all distinguished by the same perfection of draughtsmanship and skill of composition. In Holbein we have, therefore, a fitting master, from whom to start the long series of miniature painters, which in England extended away down to the beginning of the nineteenth century, or even perhaps a little later, and in his successor, Nicholas Hilliard, we find the first of the masters who was actually an Englishman born and bred.

From whom Hilliard learned his art it is impossible to tell. It would be most interesting could we decide if he ever came into contact with Holbein, and hardly less so were we able to determine that any other master first gave him lessons in this fascinating art. That he began painting as quite a boy const.i.tutes almost our first fact respecting him, and that is proved by his own portrait at the age of thirteen, signed with the young painter's initials in the usual conjoined form, and dated 1550. Of his history we know that Hilliard was the son of a man who was the High Sheriff of Exeter in 1560, Richard Hilliard by name, and that his mother was Laurence, the daughter of John Wall, a goldsmith of London. The statement that the father became High Sheriff is authorised by the inscription on the case belonging to Lord De L'Isle which at one time contained a portrait of the father executed by the son, and Walpole gives us the information respecting Hilliard's mother, corroborated by the fact that the painter named his son Laurence after his own mother. We also know that he married twice, as the portrait of his first wife Alicia Brandon at the age of twenty-two is in the Duke of Buccleuch's collection, and the inscription upon it, evidently added by the painter after his wife's death, tells us that he married again. Who his second wife was we do not know, but it seems probable that he survived her, because she is not mentioned in his will, and in it he const.i.tutes his son Laurence his sole heir and executor. He was always spoken of with great respect by his contemporaries, is styled "Gentleman" or "Mr.", and his illness in 1610 is carefully referred to in the State Papers; while James I., when he gives him the Royal Warrant of painting, expressly styles him "our well-beloved Gentleman, Nicholas Hylliard." It seems probable that by trade he was originally a goldsmith, and his portraits show us that the craft of the goldsmith had exercised a great influence over his life. In his delicate miniature portraits Hilliard never forgot his original craft, and even went so far upon occasion as to introduce what was distinctly jeweller's work into the portraits themselves. There is, for example, an actual diamond, minute certainly, set in one of his portraits, and the raised work representing jewels in other portraits is wrought with such skill and delicacy that only a goldsmith could encompa.s.s it. We know that he took Holbein as his model, for he himself says so, but his work is very different from that of the great Swabian. It is ornamental and decorative, very delicate, and elaborate, but flat and shadowless, and altogether lacking in the marvellous subtle modelling which marks out the work of Holbein. It resembles, in fact, more nearly the work of the early illuminators. It seems probable that Hilliard was not only a skilful miniature painter, but also an actual working goldsmith, and responsible for many of the extraordinary frames in which his portraits were set. Miss Helen Farquhar has with great skill elaborated a theory which tends to prove this, and which appeared in a recent issue of the "Numismatic Chronicle." Certain jewels and miniature cases have been in the past attributed to the artist, and the result of Miss Farquhar's investigation is to make it more clear that such attribution has been accurate. Hilliard painted Queen Elizabeth many times, and amongst our ill.u.s.trations will be found a portrait of the Queen (Plate II.) from the cabinet of a well-known collector, which sets forth the artist's peculiar technique. We also present an interesting example from Mr.

Pierpont Morgan's collection which has been called a portrait of _Mary Queen of Scots_ (Plate III., No. 2). It is dated 1581, and is certainly one of the few portraits which seems to stand the test of comparison with the well-known drawing and miniature of Mary Stuart attributed to Clouet. It is undoubtedly the work of Hilliard, and of remarkable excellence, and takes its place amongst the more or less mysterious portraits bearing the name of the ill-fated Queen.

Hilliard died in 1619, and appears to have been succeeded in his royal appointments and his professional work by his son Laurence, whose paintings so closely resemble those of the father that it is not always easy to distinguish the work of the two men. Very few of Laurence Hilliard's works are signed; there are two belonging to Earl Beauchamp, and one in the collection of Mr. Pierpont Morgan. The main feature of the son's work consists in the beauty of the calligraphy in the inscriptions around the portraits. It is clearer than the more formal handwriting of the father, but florid, full of exquisite curves and flourishes, and very elaborate, while the colour scheme adopted by the son is distinctly richer and more varied than that used by the father, and the composition is not quite so rigid and hard as was that of Nicholas.

The two Hilliards were, however, succeeded by two far greater men--the Olivers. One of them, Isaac, the father, was certainly Nicholas Hilliard's pupil, as the fact is mentioned more than once in Haydock's preface to his translation of Lomazzo. It seems to be possible that some of Isaac Oliver's works were copies of those of his master, and copies so accurately executed that it is not quite easy to determine respecting them. In the cabinet of Mr. Pierpont Morgan there is, for example, a miniature of Arabella Stuart which came from Walpole's collection. It has always borne the name of Hilliard, and Walpole himself was careful in the attributions he gave to his portraits, but in the Rijks Museum at Amsterdam there are two other portraits of the same lady, one of which is stated to be signed under the frame with the initials of Isaac Oliver, and there are two more, even more closely resembling it, in the collection at Sherborne Castle. The Morgan portrait is very characteristic of Hilliard, and the two in Amsterdam closely resemble it. Our suggestion for a solution of the difficulty is that the two Dutch portraits are early copies by Oliver from his master's work.

Oliver was an extremely expert painter, and a far more clever man than Hilliard, for the pencil drawings of the painter and his wife, which belong to the Earl of Derby, reveal him as a draughtsman of consummate skill. He was probably of Huguenot descent, the son, it is believed, of a certain Peter Olivier (or Oliver), a native of Rouen, who was residing in London in 1571, and we may take it that his birth was in about 1566; his death occurred in 1617, and he was buried in the church of St.

Anne's, Blackfriars.

Amongst our colour plates are two delightful portraits by him representing _Frederick, King of Bohemia, and his Wife_, who was known in England as the "Queen of Hearts," signed miniatures from the collection of Sir Charles Dilke (Plate IV., Nos. 2 and 3). In the monotone ill.u.s.trations there appear two remarkable works by this painter from the collection of Mr. Pierpont Morgan. One represents _Philip II., King of Spain_ (Plate III., No. 1), a fine portrait, set in an elaborate locket of rock-crystal and enamel work, upon the reverse of which is a representation of the Crucifixion in grisaille. This portrait has an interesting history, because it was given by the king to the Duke of Osuna, and acquired from the Osuna family, quite recently. It bears a motto which may roughly be translated "He who gives himself, gives not a little thing," words which are eminently characteristic of the pride of the Spanish monarch. The other portrait is of hardly less interest. It depicts _Queen Anne of Denmark_ (Plate III., No. 3), who was painted over and over again by Isaac Oliver, and who can always be readily distinguished by the jewels which she wore on her elaborate high collar or ruff. Amongst them invariably appears a representation of a sea-horse or a dolphin. This may perhaps have some allusion to her Scandinavian ancestry, but, in any case, it was a favourite jewel with the queen, and hardly one of her portraits appears without it. Here, again, the case containing the miniature is of extraordinary importance, because there is good evidence for attributing it to George Heriot, who was goldsmith and jeweller to Anne of Denmark, and was the founder of the great hospital and school which still bear his name in Edinburgh, while to the present generation he is perhaps better remembered as a character in Sir Walter Scott's "Fortunes of Nigel," in which delightful work he appears as "Jingling Geordie." There are portraits of Oliver himself in existence, and a delightful one of his son, while amongst the collection of the Queen of Holland there is one that is said to represent his wife.

The most notable series of the works of this painter is perhaps that which is generally known as the Digby series. Walpole tells the story of the discovery of these miniatures. He says that they were in a garret in an old house in Wales, enclosed in ebony and ivory cases, and locked up in a wainscot box, in which they were as well preserved as though only just painted. He was greatly excited about them, and was able to secure the entire collection, first buying from one owner the greater part of the collection, and then securing by a second purchase the remainder from the lady who shared them with the other heir. They were all sold at his sale at Strawberry Hill, and some of the finest of the portraits pa.s.sed into the collection of the late Baroness Burdett-Coutts, others went to Mr. Holford, and many back again to the Digby family, who would gladly have purchased the whole, but were unable to afford the prices paid by the Baroness Burdett-Coutts, then Miss Angela Coutts. One little portrait was bought by Mr. Wentworth Dilke, and now belongs to Sir Charles Dilke, it represents one of the sons of Sir Kenelm Digby, and is a charmingly graceful little work, by the kind permission of its owner ill.u.s.trated in these pages (Plate IV., No. 1).

The work of Peter Oliver cannot readily be distinguished from that of the father, save for the signature, and is as worthy of praise in every respect, even if it is not more so. That of the father is a little sterner and more forcible than the work of the son, but Peter Oliver is not only known by his delightful miniatures, but also by the copies in miniature size and style which he prepared for Charles I., and which represented some of the great pictures in the King's collection. Several of these copies still remain at Windsor Castle, others are scattered in various collections, and in some instances they are of peculiar importance. For example, there is one in Mr. Pierpont Morgan's collection, representing the marriage of St. Catherine, by a Venetian painter, probably t.i.tian or Palma Vecchio, which is apparently the only record of a vanished painting at one time in the King's collection, but later on sold into Spain, and which there perished in a fire at Seville.

A curious story is told by Horace Walpole concerning some miniatures by Peter Oliver. He says that Vertue handed down the information that Charles II. being very anxious to re-purchase the portraits which had been dispersed on the execution of his father, was told that the widow of Peter Oliver had taken back some of the miniatures, and had them in her possession. The King went to Isleworth to see her, disguising himself that he should not be known, and she showed him several works by her husband. He was pleased with them and tried to purchase them, but the lady stated that she was anxious to submit them to the King, and if he did not buy them, a price should be named for their disposal. The King then discovered himself to her, and at once she showed him many more miniatures which she had not shown to anyone else, and King Charles desired to acquire them all. She would not, however, quote a price to him, but promised to look over her husband's books, and let His Majesty know what prices had been paid to Peter Oliver by Charles I. The King took away the miniatures with him, and afterwards sent one of the grooms of the bedchamber to Mrs. Oliver, offering her a thousand pounds for them, or an annuity of 300 for her life. She chose the latter, but after some few years, hearing that a great many of the miniatures had pa.s.sed out of the King's possession, and had been given by him to the various ladies at the Court, Mrs. Oliver, who was given to express herself in somewhat blunt language, said that if she had thought the King would have given the miniatures to his mistresses and illegitimate children he should never have had them. Her remark, which was couched in very strong language, was carried by someone to the Court. The poor woman's annuity was at once stopped, and she never again received it.

Following Isaac and Peter Oliver in chronological survey, and necessarily omitting reference to some of the less important painters, we come to the name of a man of considerable eminence in his profession, John Hoskins. To a certain extent he has been overshadowed by the extraordinary merit of his nephew and pupil, Samuel Cooper, but Hoskins was a very great painter himself, and his work marks the beginning of the broader and more powerful English miniature portraiture, as distinguished from the minute work of the men who had been trained under the influence of illuminators, and whose miniatures were too full of detail to be entirely satisfactory. There is no doubt that, as Walpole says, the carnations used in the faces painted by Hoskins are too bricky in colour, but the whole effect of the portrait is simple and dignified, and there is, for the first time in English miniature portraiture, a n.o.bility of treatment and a sober grandeur of effect, extraordinarily impressive. The portrait of the _Duke of Buckingham_ (Plate V.) from a well-known collection, ill.u.s.trated in colour, well sets forth the dignity of Hoskins' works. It is an exceedingly fine miniature, quiet in colouring, and entirely satisfactory in composition. It is signed and dated, and, with respect to the signatures on miniatures by Hoskins, a few words must be said. It is well also to mark that in the works of Hoskins appears for the first time the division of the background, which is rather a notable feature in the portraits of Cooper, who evidently derived the idea from his uncle. The effect of this division on the lighting of the portrait is excellent, the sitter being placed near to a window, by which hangs a curtain, and the window commanding a view which in many cases was adapted by the artist to some event in the history of the sitter. As regards the signatures Hoskins adopted several methods of signing his miniatures, combining his two initials in different forms of monogram, or separating them with or without the addition of the abbreviation "fc." Until quite recently the statement made by Vertue that Hoskins had a son, was incapable of proof; although the fact that the contemporary inscriptions on some of the miniatures at Ham House speak of "Old Hoskins," implies that there must have been a younger man of the same name, and it was thought that the variety of signatures might help clear up the doubtful question, and that perhaps the father adopted a certain method of signing his portraits, and the son another form of signature. Fortunately, however, in the collection of Mr. Pierpont Morgan, there appears a portrait of the Duke of Berwick, signed with conjoined initials, and bearing upon it an inscription, stating not only who it represented, but actually when it was painted.

This miniature proved to contain the missing link of evidence, because there was no question about its authenticity, its accurate attribution, or its signature, but as it was painted in 1700, while we know that the elder Hoskins was buried in 1664, we have in it definite information, not only of the existence of the son, but of the fact that he was painting miniatures thirty-six years after his father had died. The same notable collection contains many works by the elder Hoskins, but only this one which can be definitely attributed to his son. The collections at Ham House and Montagu House are very rich in works by Hoskins, those at the former place being distinguished by delightful contemporary inscriptions on the backs of almost every portrait, recording in many instances the price paid to the artist for it. Of the works at Montagu House, one of the finest represents Charles II. in his youth, and in the collection at Ham is perhaps the largest work which Hoskins ever painted.

A particularly good example of the work of this master is the portrait of _Queen Henrietta Maria_ (Plate VI.) from the Pierpont Morgan collection, and this miniature is the more interesting because apparently it has never been re-framed, for not only is the metal frame the contemporary one, but it possesses its original bevelled gla.s.s, the oval divided into a series of curved segments, each of which has its polished bevelled edge. Waller, in 1625, spoke of the Queen in these words:--

"Such a complexion and such radiant eyes, Such lovely motions and such sharp replies, Beyond our reach, and yet within our sight, What envious power has placed this glorious light?"

We need not, perhaps, accept the praises of the poet, but at least we may admire the quiet sweetness of the Queen's face in this charming portrait, and recognise the skill and dexterity with which it is delineated.

Trained and educated by Hoskins was Samuel Cooper, preeminently the greatest miniature painter that England ever produced, and in the opinion of many critics the n.o.blest miniature painter of Europe. We know comparatively little about Cooper's history, but there are few artists concerning whom it would be more desirable to have information.

Fortunately, Pepys mentions him several times in his wonderful diary; especially with reference to the portrait of Mrs. Pepys which her husband commissioned. He was evidently a great admirer of the work of Cooper, although, as regards this particular portrait, he does not appear to have been perfectly satisfied with the likeness. He says he was not "satisfied in the greatness of the resemblance, nor in the blue garment, but it was most certainly a most rare piece of work as to the painting," and he tells us the exact price that Cooper charged him, and adds that he sent him the money that night that he might be out of debt.

Aubrey calls Cooper "the prince of limners of his age." Ray the naturalist, in writing to Aubrey, refers to a miniature portrait presented to the Ashmolean Museum as "a n.o.ble present and a thing of great value." Evelyn calls him "the rare limner" and describes the visit which he paid to the King's private room, where he found Cooper at work painting the royal portrait, and had the honour to hold the candle while it was being done, as Cooper, he says, "chose the night and candle-light for better finding out the shadows." To all this chorus of praise Walpole adds his voice, and tells us that, in his opinion, Cooper's works were so fine that they were perfect nature, and that if "a gla.s.s could expand Cooper's pictures to the size of Vandyck's, they would appear to have been painted for that proportion," adding that "if the Cooper portrait of Cromwell could be so enlarged, I do not know but Vandyck would appear less great by the comparison." Even with this criticism, Walpole is careful not to be entirely eulogistic, and he points out with unerring discrimination that, although the heads in Cooper's portraits were so fine, he yet possessed a lack of skill in draughtsmanship where other portions of the body were concerned, and, especially as regards the hands, he had a curious want of grace and accuracy, His faces, however, are superb, and well deserve all the praise that can be given to them. They have been called n.o.ble and masterly, and the words are befitting. The two portraits representing _Charles II._ and _The Earl of Loudoun_, which we present from the Pierpont Morgan collection (Plate VII.), and the two in colour, depicting _Colonel Lilburne_ and _Lady Fauconberg_, from the collection of Mr. Hodgkins (Plate VIII.), will well set forth the dignity and power possessed by this great master. His largest miniature is the portrait of Charles I. at Goodwood, and there is a somewhat smaller replica by the master's own hand in the Rijks Museum at Amsterdam. The Earl of Exeter possesses one of his rare half-length portraits, depicting Elizabeth, Countess of Devonshire, as a girl, and in the Victoria and Albert Museum is a large square portrait of the painter, by himself. With these exceptions, the majority of Cooper's works are ovals, varying in size, representing the head and shoulders only, and almost all the great collections of miniatures possess examples by the painter. As a rule, his colours have stood extraordinarily well; in some instances, however, they have faded, but it has generally been owing to damp or to indifferent treatment on the part of the owners of the portraits. In Mr.

Pierpont Morgan's collection one miniature representing _Lord Loudoun_ (Plate VII., No. 2) is in extraordinarily perfect condition, but for a couple of generations it was lost sight of behind some oak panelling and has only recently come to light. Another very fine one, in the same collection, represents _Charles II._ (Plate VII., No. 1). Cooper's method of painting is very interesting, and as he has left behind several unfinished portraits, we are enabled to study it with considerable accuracy. It is clear that he commenced to draw the head and figure in brown, and, as a recent writer has pointed out, painted in the shadows with transparent sienna, and the half-tones with a pure grey blue. His work is executed upon vellum as a rule, but sometimes upon cardboard, and his flesh tints are nearly always transparent, although occasionally they are upon a white background, and in some few rare instances, where he desired special effect, he used opaque colours.

Several of his portraits he has never carried beyond the early stages.

They are only sketches, but such sketches as no one else could have done, exquisitely rendered, full of palpitating life. This is especially the case with the portrait of the Duke of Albemarle at Windsor, and with one in the same collection representing the Duke of Monmouth; with that of Oliver Cromwell, at Montagu House, and with an extraordinary little sketch, which we ill.u.s.trate in colour, by permission of Sir Charles Dilke (Plate IX., No. 1). This also came from Strawberry Hill, where it was bought by the grandfather of its present owner, and it offers a bewildering problem to the student. Walpole declares, in an inscription on the back of it in his own handwriting, that it represents "Miss Temple, Maid of Honour to the d.u.c.h.ess of York, second wife of Charles Lyttelton," and that it was the work of Gervase Spencer, after an original painted by Cooper, in the possession of Lord Lyttelton, and Walpole ought to have known what he was talking about. It is quite possible that he is correct, but the original portrait from which this sketch is said to have been made is not now in the possession of the Lyttelton family, and the miniature itself bears such a striking resemblance to the work of Cooper that it is difficult to believe that it is a copy by anyone at all. We know how constantly Cooper's work was copied, one of the finest examples of such repet.i.tion being the well-known work at Montagu House by Mrs. Ross, a portrait of the Duke of Monmouth, but there is no example known to us of an eighteenth-century painter copying the work of Cooper with the exception or this one, if Walpole's statement is correct. Another curious circ.u.mstance about the inscription is that Walpole has made an error in the name. It was not Charles but Thomas Lyttelton who married Christian Temple. She was the daughter of Sir Richard Temple of Stowe, and the heir of Viscount Cobham; thus it was through her that the Viscounty and Barony of Cobham came to the family.

As we have already written very fully in another place, we are quite unable to accept the series of unfinished miniatures at the Victoria and Albert Museum as being the work of Cooper. There is no external evidence whatever in favour of the tradition. They are painted on a very smooth cardboard, quite a different material to that used by Cooper, and on the back of one of the portraits is an inscription in the same handwriting as is the one on the copy by Mrs. Ross at Montagu House, and apparently signed by the same person. It is quite possible that in the collection the portrait of Lord Brooke (which was not contained in the pocket-book when the original purchase was made) may be a genuine work by Cooper, very likely acquired by Mrs. Ross, as a guide for her own work, but all the other portraits are, we are convinced, the work of this clever copyist, and must not be attributed to the master himself. In the course of our investigations concerning a missing portrait by Cooper, representing the Countess of Exeter, we came upon two interesting letters in the Duke of Rutland's collection at Belvoir Castle, which proved that this portrait was never finished. On the 9th April, 1672, Mr. Charles Manners wrote to Lord Roos in the following terms:--"I haesten on Mr. Cooper all I can to the finishing of my Lady Exester's picture, and hee will surely doe it, G.o.d willing; but at the present the King and the Duke have put severall things into his hands which take him off from all else." Then again, on the 4th May, Mr. Manners wrote again to Lord Roos respecting the same portrait, and he then stated that although Mr. Cooper had promised "with all imaginable respect and kindeness to finish it out of hand, and actually begun it, he just then fell dangerously sicke, and confyned to his bed, and I very much feare hee cannot possibly outlive three days." As a matter of fact, Cooper did not live a day after this letter had been sent, for from Mary Beale's diary we have the information that he died on the 5th May, the diarist writing as follows:--"Sunday, May 5th, 1672, Mr. Samuel Cooper, the most famous limner of the world for a face, dyed." The two letters from which these quotations are taken are to be found in facsimile in the catalogue of Mr. Pierpont Morgan's collection of miniatures. Other odd facts concerning this great painter we learn from Pepys and certain contemporary records. We know that he was an excellent musician, playing well on the lute, and a clever linguist, speaking French with ease. He resided in Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, and frequented the Covent Garden coffee-house; he was a short, stout man of a ruddy countenance, was married and had one daughter. The Duke of Portland's collection at Welbeck contains the portrait of his wife Christina, and in another collection there is a portrait of his daughter, both fine paintings by the master himself. Christina Cooper was a Miss Turner, and her other sister, Edith, married the father of Alexander Pope. Mrs. Cooper was Pope's G.o.dmother and taught him his letters, and to her G.o.dson she bequeathed a "painted china dish with a silver pot and a dish to set it in," as well as the reversion of her books, pictures and medals, with Samuel Cooper's "grinding stone and muller," and some of his portrait sketches.

It is not quite certain that Cooper was born in England; we know the date of his birth, 1609, but we have no certain evidence that he was an Englishman by birth, although there is every probability that this was the case. He was, however, for a while in France, and he was certainly in Holland, and possibly in Sweden also, where his brother, Alexander Cooper, also spent some time. It was in Sweden that we were able to discover a good deal of information respecting Alexander Cooper, and notably a statement concerning his account for certain royal portraits in his own handwriting. Samuel Cooper's appearance is known to us by the portraits in the Victoria and Albert Museum, but an even more interesting sketch of him is in the Pierpont Morgan collection, painted in sepia, on a piece of paper which has been twice folded. An inscription, which we believe to be in his own handwriting, is at the back of a portrait at Welbeck Abbey, and is to the effect that the picture in question, and one or two previous ones, were done for a Mr.

Graham, but had not been paid for at the time the artist was writing.

There is hardly a miniature by this eminent man which is not worth careful consideration, and in the power of delineating character and setting before us the actual feelings of his sitters, Cooper had no rival, while one of the great features of his work is its amazing variety. Moreover, the manner in which he adapted his technique, his colour scheme, and his ideas of composition to the special circ.u.mstances of the person whom he had to delineate, is very remarkable. His portraits of men are perhaps more attractive than those of women, although he was well able to convey the fascination of a woman's face; but the strong, rugged men of his period were portrayed by him with quite extraordinary power, and he created a method of portraiture entirely his own, and filled it with individual characteristics. Two splendid examples are amongst our ill.u.s.trations in colour (Plate VIII.), _Lady Fauconberg_ and _Colonel Lilburne_, both from the collection of Mr. Hodgkins.

Of his contemporaries it will suffice to mention one or two, and perhaps the best of them was David des Granges, whose work is represented in our ill.u.s.trations in colour by a portrait of _Rachel Fane, Countess of Bath_, from the collection of Mr. Hodgkins (Plate IX., No. 2). Of this artist and his parentage we know a little, thanks to the researches of Mr. Lionel Cust in the registers of the Huguenot Church in London. It seems probable that Des Granges, although baptised in the Huguenot faith, did not continue in that communion, because in 1649 he is mentioned in some papers belonging to the French Dominicans as a Catholic, and he was a very close friend of the celebrated artist Inigo Jones, who was also a Catholic. The portrait of the architect by David des Granges, representing Inigo Jones at the age of 68, is at Welbeck Abbey, signed with the initials D.D.G., and is one of the best works by him with which we are acquainted.

For the works of Faithorne or Loggan, Flatman or Lens, we must refer our readers to more elaborate books on miniature painting, and hasten forward towards the eighteenth century. Before we do so, however, it may be of interest that we should refer to an ill.u.s.tration in colour of a miniature which has not hitherto been represented in any book on this subject. It is a portrait which has been bequeathed through various owners as a likeness of _John Milton_ (Plate X.), and there is a good deal of evidence to support this very interesting attribution. It came from the Woodc.o.c.k family, who state that it has been handed down in direct succession from Catherine Woodc.o.c.k, whom Milton married as his second wife on the 12th of November 1656. She was the daughter of a Captain Woodc.o.c.k, of Hackney, and the former owners of the miniature stated that their family home was in Hackney. Mrs. Milton had a baby girl on October 19th, 1657, and she and her child died in February 1658, when the miniature was given to her niece, who is stated to have been present at the confinement, and from her it came to its late owners, who only parted with it when actually compelled so to do. It therefore belonged to the Mrs. Milton who is immortalised by the poet in his twenty-third sonnet, where he speaks of her as

"My late espoused saint, Brought to me like Alcestis from the grave,"

And adds

"... once more I trust to have Full sight of her in Heaven without restraint."

He says she

"Came vested all in white, pure as her mind Her face was veiled; yet to my fancied sight Love, sweetness, goodness, in her person shined So clear, as in no face with more delight.

But, oh! as to embrace me she inclined, I waked, she fled, and day brought back my night."

If, as seems most probable, the attribution of this portrait is correct, it gives us a view of Milton at a period of his life of which we have no other portrait, for it must have been painted when he Was about 48, and it bears out Aubrey's remarks about him, in which he speaks of his reddish hair, of his "exceeding fayre complexion," of his oval face, and tells us that he was "a spare man." Apparently it was never engraved, and Deborah Milton seems to have known nothing about it, but as she was quite a child when her father's second wife died, and as the portrait pa.s.sed away from the Milton family so quickly, it is very natural that we should have no other record of it than the miniature itself.

We now come to the eighteenth century, and without referring in detail to the men who preceded the foundation of the Royal Academy, would just mention one of the prominent miniature painters of the early days of the century, Christian Richter by name. He was the son of a Swedish silversmith who came to England in the time of Queen Anne, and settled down with his brother, who was a medallist and a die-sinker. His work is luminous and distinguished, marked by rather an excessive brilliance of red in the carnations, but by a very handsome colour scheme as a rule; the example we give in our colour plates, the portrait of _Prince George of Denmark_, the consort of Queen Anne (Plate XI.) from the Hodgkins collection, setting forth his characteristics in a satisfactory fashion.

The catalogues of the Royal Academy are full of the names of miniature painters. The period of its foundation was prolific in the number of limners it produced. Miniature painting was the fashion. There were half-a-dozen important painters, and two or three hundred lesser men.

The greater men stand out distinctly. Of the lesser men, many are only names to us. Here and there we have sc.r.a.ps of information respecting their history, details concerning the place where they resided, a few dates, and now and again an inscription on the back of a miniature to guide us; but of the vast majority of those who exhibited at the early exhibitions we know little, and of many of them it is not necessary that we should know very much, as their work was neither especially remarkable, nor especially praiseworthy. In considering this period, however, one comment must be made. As a rule, each painter was individual and characteristic. He allowed the personal equation to take an important part in his work, and when the expert is once familiar with the characteristics of the painter, his miniatures can be found quite readily whether signed or not. It is this special personal quality which distinguishes the painters of the period from the host of miniature painters of the present day who have striven to revivify the art, but who in many cases have become mere copyists, and have not allowed personal characteristics to distinguish their work. With the names of the great painters many are familiar, Cosway, Plimer, Smart, Ozias Humphry, Engleheart, Edridge, and Grimaldi are all well known, and the collector is more or less familiar with the names of a few of the minor painters whose works are worth collecting, as, for example, Nathaniel and Horace Hone, Vaslet, and others. There is neither opportunity nor need, in an essay of this sort, to refer to them in detail, because we are not concerned here with anything more than a broad survey of the miniature art, and must not confine our attention to England only. The painters of the eighteenth-century offer a sharp contrast to those of the seventeenth, and comparison only makes the contrast the more evident. In the work of Cooper we have strength, power, dignity; in that of Cosway and of the artists of his period is refinement, dexterity, fascination, a spice of flippancy and at times a certain meretricious quality, but this latter is far less seen in Cosway himself than in the work of his followers and admirers. The public demanded something quite different from the artists of the eighteenth century from that which they asked of the earlier school; the work had to be done more quickly, and it must be more charming, sensitive, and radiant. In his skill for giving his sitters exactly what they wanted, and in setting forth on the ivory the dainty grace of the women of the eighteenth century, there was no one who could approach within measurable distance of Cosway himself; and there is a marvellous fascination about his exquisite work, an individuality which belongs exactly to the period and represents it in all its grace, lightness and flippancy.

Undoubtedly the nearest in merit to Cosway was Andrew Plimer, and some of his works are fascinating in their beauty, but in charm they are never equal to those of Cosway, and the peculiar mannerisms of the artist prevent them from being altogether satisfactory. Plimer had very little power of composition, and he invariably over-accentuated the eyes of his sitters, and constantly repeated a favourite pose either of head or figure, while the extraordinary wiry manner in which he delineated the hair marks out his work at once. Quite as noticeable is his affection for the appearance of his own daughters, and the very shape of their necks and brilliance of their eyes can be seen repeated over and over again in his portraits of other sitters. Less than most of his contemporaries was he able to break away from a strong personal characteristic; and eventually it became a species of obsession with him, so that his female portraits strikingly resemble one another.

John Smart was a painter of a different type, serious, solid, painstaking. His facial modelling is extraordinary in its accuracy, and his works, like those of Engleheart, appear to have been preferred by the more serious persons in society, whereas those of Cosway and Plimer were particularly appreciated by the gay and frivolous ladies of the Court circle, whose sun and centre was the Prince Regent.

There are miniatures by Cosway which are of pre-eminent beauty, so lightly and with such exquisite skill are they floated upon the ivory.

The quality of the material had, of course, an intimate connection with the art of the painter. The seventeenth-century artists knew nothing of the brilliant surface of ivory, although it is possible that one at least of them had an inkling that a more luminous material than vellum, cardboard, or chicken-skin, could be found. There are two miniatures in existence, one of which is in the possession of the author of these pages, the work of Cooper, which are not painted on any of the materials usually adopted by him. This latter is painted on what was at first thought to be a piece of ivory, but microscopic investigation has revealed the fact that it is polished mutton-bone, and the painter has so altered his technique to adapt it to this curious experiment, that for the first moment one would hardly believe the miniature to be by Cooper at all. Its pedigree is, however, una.s.sailable, and a closer investigation reveals many of the master's characteristics, but it is painted with a very fine brush, quite different to the usual broad, full sweep of his work, and it stands out as an interesting experiment on the part of the great painter, who was searching for some material more suitable for a particular style of work. Ivory was not employed until the time of William III., and it seems probable that one of the Lens family was the first to make use of it; but, once adopted, its use became very general, and in the prolific period of the eighteenth century, almost universal.

Cosway is said to have experimented in enamel, and certainly one enamel portrait, with his initials, is in existence. He drew very skilfully on paper, and a few of his miniatures are on that material. One of his works, signed and dated, is on silk, but all these were only experiments, and the greater number of his miniatures are on ivory, which material lends itself perfectly to his craft. In our opinion the finest miniature Cosway ever produced was his unfinished sketch of _Madame du Barry_, one of the greatest treasures of Mr. Pierpont Morgan's collection, and by his kind permission ill.u.s.trated here in monotone (Plate XII.). It was painted in 1791 on the occasion when Madame du Barry came over to England to recover her jewels, and on her third visit to this country in that year. From this portrait a stipple engraving was made by Conde in 1794, but the miniature itself came into the possession of the Vernons, having belonged to a Miss Caroline Vernon who was maid of honour to Queen Charlotte. It was sold in London in 1902, when it pa.s.sed to its present owner, and in grace, sweetness, and fascination, is unrivalled, even amongst his wonderful treasures.

Another delightful portrait from the same collection represents the oft-painted _Henrietta, Lady Duncannon_, who was afterwards Countess of Bessborough (Plate XIV., No. 2). She was sister to Georgiana, d.u.c.h.ess of Devonshire, and seems to have spent a great deal of her time in sitting for her portrait, all the artists of the day having painted her. This miniature is remarkable for the fact that it still remains in its original frame, a very magnificent one, richly set with superb diamonds.

Yet another charming portrait by Cosway (Plate XIV., No. 1) came from the Truro collection to Mr. Morgan. It represents _Lady Augusta Murray_, the daughter of Lord Dunmore, who became the wife of the Duke of Suss.e.x, the 6th son of George III. It was her marriage which, although twice performed, in Rome and at St. George's, Hanover Square, was declared null and void under the Royal Marriage Act (12 Geo. III. cap. 11). Her daughter was Lady Truro. Lady Augusta was only painted twice, and on both occasions by Cosway.

Our coloured ill.u.s.trations include three portraits of women by Cosway, _Viscountess St. Asaph_ (Plate XIII.), the _Countess of Rochford_ (Plate XV.) and _Princess Charlotte_ (Plate XVI.), all of them distinguished by Cosway's special method of painting the hair, and marked by that inimitable grace in which he excelled.

We also ill.u.s.trate from Lord Hothfield's collection one of Cosway's more serious portraits of men, _The Earl of Thanet_ (Plate XVII.), set upon the usual blue cloudy background, in this instance a trifle paler than usual, and painted with convincing force in a very remarkable colour scheme.