CATALOGUE 
 
 OF 
 
 A LOAN EXHIBITION 
 
 OF 
 
 ENGLISH PAINTINGS 
 
 DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS 
 ~~ JANUARY 18th to 3ist 
 
 1926 
 
 
 

 
THE 
 SECOND LOAN EXHIBITION 
 
 OF 
 
 OLD MASTERS 
 
 British Paintings 
 of the 
 Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries 
 
 
 
 mabe DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS 
 January 18th to 31st 
 1926 
 

 
FOREWORD 
 
 FEXHE second exhibition of fifty Old Masters from American 
 
 private collections aims to give an idea of the greatness of 
 English X VIII century art in the same way that the first exhibition 
 of last year gave of Dutch art of the XVII century. It is antici- 
 pated that the present exhibition—the best of its kind as we believe 
 ever shown in an American museum—will be even more popular 
 than that of last year; for English art of the great period is a century 
 nearer to us than Dutch art and has perhaps won for itself a greater 
 fame with the art-loving public in general than any other field 
 of early painting, thanks to their artists’ highly developed sense for 
 decorative quality and their expression of charm and beauty in 
 portraiture. In this country in particular the influence of early 
 English architecture and decoration is still so much alive that the 
 admiration for English painting, which forms an integral part of 
 them, is only natural wherever culture becomes an important factor 
 in life. This may account for the fact that it was possible to draw 
 for this exhibition a much larger number of works from Detroit 
 homes than for the one of last year, some of them forming a part 
 of the earliest collections in the city, gathered as long ago as fifteen 
 or twenty years; others being acquisitions of very recent date, 
 coincident with the revival of art interest in Detroit created by the 
 erection of the new museum. 
 
 As in last year’s exhibition, it has been the endeavor to select 
 only works of high order, so that the public taste may be directed 
 at once to the highest form of art. The concentration upon the 
 most representative period of English art—that from 1770 to 1830 
 —seemed therefore necessary, and from this flourishing period only 
 the greatest masters were selected: in portraiture the two trios, 
 Gainsborough, Reynolds and Romney, and—-a few decades later 
 —Hoppner, Lawrence and Raeburn; and in landscape Constable 
 and Turner. For comparison only, and to give an idea of the source 
 of English portrait painting, the full-length portrait by Van Dyck, 
 painted in England during his last and most influential period there, 
 has been added. 
 
 Gainsborough, who regarded himself as the truest follower of 
 Van Dyck, may be linked with him over the centuries, although 
 of all English portraitists he may be said to be equally as original 
 and independent in style as Van Dyck. His incomparable manner, 
 which combines French XVIII century elegance with English 
 straightforwardness and precision of style, is most admirably 
 
represented in the series of five portraits, among them the splendid 
 full-length portrait of Anne, Duchess of Hamilton, a work of extra- 
 ordinarily subtle color combination. The two double portraits of 
 the Villebovs and the Goddard children (the latter with its sketchy 
 character a work of highly artistic quality and the last work which 
 Gainsborough painted) show his rare ability in solving the problem 
 of grouping two figures in one composition in a perfectly natural 
 manner; while the full-length portrait of Richard Savage and the 
 bust of Richard Jodrell show how wrong is the opinion that Gains- 
 borough is less remarkable in his portraits of men, for in spacious- 
 ness of composition, fascination of color and spirited freedom of 
 technic, nothing more brilliant could be conceived. How great 
 Gainsborough was as a landscape painter is proved by his Landscape 
 with a Bridge, which may be said to be one of the masterpieces of 
 landscape painting, combining as it does a most modern subjective 
 treatment of surface with the grandeur and style of Claude Lorrain 
 and an indescribable spiritual quality of its own. - 
 
 While Gainsborough is always true to his century, we often feel 
 in Reynolds a closer relationship to masters of earlier periods: to 
 Rembrandt, for instance, in his pasty technic and softness of line, 
 and to the great Italian masters of the High Renaissance in the 
 arrangement of his compositions. This may be said especially of 
 his Holy Family, with its decided Raffaelesque influence in compo- 
 sition and Titianesque style in execution. Most original, on the 
 other hand, do we find him in his portraits of children, a type of 
 portraiture which is one of the prides of the English school of the 
 XVIII century, of which he was the creator. The Strawberry Girl, 
 famous through the engraving by Watson, is an enchanting example 
 of his more imaginative, genre-iike representation of children, while 
 the portrait of Theresa Parker shows the artist as the portrayer of 
 the charm of the beautifully dressed children of the English aristoc- 
 racy of the period, with all the naiveté of their behaviour. 
 
 The third great master of the earlier phase of English XVIII 
 century portrait painting, George Romney, is represented in all 
 the aspects of his delightful art by the twelve portraits in the 
 exhibition. The broad and clear lines of his style, his ability to 
 build up his compositions in obvious geometric patterns by reducing 
 the objects to large simple forms, give to his full-length pictures a 
 monumental aspect which is often very impressive. How fresco- 
 like, for instance, is the composition of Walter Tempest, almost 
 reminding one of a relief of classical art, the broad lines of the horse 
 being beautifully combined with the fine, bow-like curves of the 
 
silhouette of the boy! How grandly conceived is the portrait of 
 Sheridan, expressing in the great sweeping lines the brilliant flow 
 of words of this great orator! And what dignity and composure is 
 expressed in his portraits of women like Barbara, Countess of 
 Donegall and Lady Beauchamp-Proctor! With the classical aspect 
 of his compositions, the statuesque quality of his figures and the 
 broadness of his technic, Romney often combines a wonderful 
 richness of local colours, full of transparency and depth of tone. 
 What a beautiful combination of green, red and yellow in the 
 Sheridan! What a glowing scarlet in the Kirkpatrick and the 
 Thomas Grove, and what a rich dark blue in the portrait of Turner! 
 In looking over the series of his exhibited works it seems astonishing 
 that he was able to give to women, men and children alike such an 
 exceptional regularity of features, always with beautifully curved 
 lips, straight noses with small nostrils and the ever fascinating 
 large eyes. Did he flatter his models or did he select unusually 
 handsome persons for his sitters? Yet they belonged to all social 
 classes, to the bourgeois as well as the aristocracy. And how closely 
 his interests were connected with the literary and theatrical world, 
 even our exhibition may prove, where we find such portraits as 
 the ones of Oliver Goldsmith, the author of The Vicar of Wakefield; 
 Richard Sheridan who wrote the School for Scandal and William 
 Beckford, the author of Vathek; or the portrait of Lady Hamilton 
 in one of her effective theatrical poses as ‘‘Mirth.”’ 
 
 Compared with the work of this triumvirate, the portraits of 
 the younger generation—Hoppner and Lawrence — show the begin- 
 ning of the art of the new century, with the less reserved position 
 of the figures, looser composition and technic and still more pro- 
 nounced pictorial tendencies. The landscapes in the backgrounds 
 also become more realistic, forming more closely an integral part 
 of the composition, demonstrating that the time of the great 
 landscape artists, especially of Constable, is at hand. Hoppner 
 and Lawrence, both represented in our exhibition in a more ade- 
 quate way than they can be seen in even the public collections in 
 England, rival one another in pleasantness of expression, natural- 
 ness of pose and brillianey of color effects. When we know that 
 Hoppner is said to have been a rather cranky and spiteful person, 
 it is a curious contrast that it is just he who is able to give to his 
 models a gaiety and enjoyment in life that is hardly to be surpassed. 
 Could the joy of youth be better expressed than in his Tambourine 
 Girl or the portrait of Charlotte Chetwynd? Or the sweetness of 
 beautiful society girls more enchantingly portrayed than in the two 
 
portraits of the Beresford sisters, the one in pink, the other in light 
 blue? These two masterpieces of his art show his characteristic 
 preference for a light key of color, especially the pink tones, which 
 go so well with the bright faces of his beautiful sitters. 
 
 Lawrence generally builds up his compositions in stronger con- 
 trasts of ight and shade, developing the outlines of his figures 
 from a deeper bluish background and replacing the pink of Hoppner 
 with carmine, which often forms color combinations with black 
 and white, most brilliantly illustrated in the portraits of Mrs. 
 Thomson and her Child, and Mrs. Stratton, two of his masterpieces. 
 In prettiness, his dark eyed and dark haired beauties (all of our 
 pictures are of this character) are the equals of Hoppner’s blonder 
 types, while in vividness of expression and momentariness of pose 
 he goes still farther at times. The position of the little girl in the 
 portrait of Mrs. Thomson and her Child and the two young women in 
 the portraits of Lady Elizabeth and Maria Conyngham, are of an 
 almost photographic naturalness, which the former generation of 
 artists with their more restful poses had not yet expressed, but 
 which was so much sought after by the artists of the XIX Century, 
 though not always with equal success. 
 
 Raeburn holds a position of his own and may be compared, in 
 the simplification of his forms and the fluidity of his technic, to 
 Romney, with whom he has in common the comparatively recent 
 recognition of his remarkable art. His technic has been also com- 
 pared with that of Frans Hals, but his brushwork, although it is 
 of the same broadness, is less heavy and not so much in evidence, 
 so that in the two marvelous portraits of Mrs. Grant of Kilgrasten 
 and Mrs. Boswell it seems almost inconceivable that he is able to 
 create such extroardinary effects with such an easy and invisible 
 technic. His relation to the younger generation is obvious from 
 his greater pictorial tendency, and in this way he forms almost a 
 contrast to Romney, his compositions being built up not like 
 Romney’s, upon lines, but upon light effects, through which he is 
 able to give his portraits an astonishing spontaneity. The momen- 
 tary expression of his faces with their shghtly open, almost speaking 
 mouths, connects him with the generation of Lawrence and Hoppner, 
 but his more simple and unaffected nature does not permit him to 
 aim at their color effects. His subdued colors are combined with 
 ereatest refinement, which may be seen in the portrait of Mrs. 
 Andrew Hay in her white dress with the light blue cap, girdle and 
 chair, against a warm autumn landscape. This picture shows 
 that when he uses landscape backgrounds his understanding of 
 
nature manifests a decided advance over his predecessors in the 
 direction of realism. His figures are actuallly sitting out of doors 
 and are enveloped in the same warm light as the landscape. 
 
 We have seen what an important part landscape painting played 
 in English portrait painting in forming the background and sur- 
 roundings of the sitters, and—that at least one of the great portrait- 
 ists and perhaps the greatest of them all—Gainsborough—was also 
 a landscape painter of eminence. Rich as the art of portraiture in 
 England in its great period appears, with its variety of different 
 temperaments, the panorama of this epoch becomes complete only 
 through the addition of landscape art. The two greatest masters 
 of landscape painting in England, Turner and Constable, contem- 
 poraries of the younger generation of portrait painters, supplement 
 one another in the most perfect manner, representing as they do 
 the two sides of human character, the realistic and the idealistic. 
 The variety of style and the development of these two prolific 
 masters cannot be grasped unless many of their works are seen 
 together. We have only attempted to give an idea of their character 
 in the few examples shown in the exhibition. How imaginative 
 Turner appears even when he paints directly from nature may be 
 seen in the two water colours, one a view of Lucerne, the other of 
 Florence, in which he adds an enormous, fantastic spacing to his 
 representations, while the extraordinary power of phantasy of his 
 last period creates such glorious compositions as The Deluge. 
 
 Of Constable’s art, with its more intimate motives and intensity 
 in observing nature, the view of The Glebe Farm and Salisbury 
 Cathedral from the Bishop’s House, give a most delightful idea of 
 his mature period, while his last phase is represented in the broadly 
 painted Lock on the Stour, the period from which we may say all 
 modern landscape begins. 
 
 W. R. VALENTINER 
 

 
 No. 27. SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 
 Mrs. Andrew Hay 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
 BRITISH PAINTING 
 
 F we except the mediaeval manuscript iluminations and the 
 
 moralities of Hogarth, we may say that the laurels of English 
 painting have been won in two fields—those of protraiture and 
 landscage. The English are comparative newcomers in the field 
 of landscape, but their triumphs in portraiture date back to the 
 Gothic period. The two famous portraits of Richard II are un- 
 excelled by any contemporary European work. The Wars of the 
 Roses, however, were disastrous to painting, and in the fourteen 
 hundreds it almost disappeared. This was the century in which 
 the Florentines were achieving their brilliant successes in the 
 representation of movement and of the visible world—the century 
 of Masaccio, Uccello, Pollaiuolo, Botticelli and Leonardo da Vinci; 
 and, nearer home, Flanders.was producing a series of masters, such as 
 the Van Eycks, Roger Van der Weyden and Memling. The English 
 had no one to compare with these, and when Henry the Eighth, the 
 one English king blest with the artistic temperament, ascended the 
 throne in 1509, he can hardly have looked with satisfaction on the © 
 condition of art in hiscountry. The great German painter, Holbein, 
 was induced to come over, and he spent the last eleven years of 
 his life in England. 
 
 Holbein looked out in his detached way on the men and women 
 of Tudor England, and produced such a life-like series of paintings 
 and drawings that we seem to be almost as familiar with these 
 inhabitants of 16th Century England as we are with our own con- 
 temporaries. The figure of Holbein dominated English painting 
 all through the fifteen hundreds, the great Tudor century, the days 
 of Elizabeth. The most important English painters of this time 
 were Hilliard and Isaac Oliver, whose portrait miniatures, while 
 showing the influence of Holbein, show also a peculiarly English 
 sense of elegance which foreshadows Van Dyck. And Samuel 
 Cooper, who was born later and is the most eminent of all the minia- 
 ture painters, expressed this spirit still more clearly. 
 
 In 1603 Charles I came to the throne of England, and the need 
 was felt for a court painter. Almost exactly a hundred years 
 after Holbein had conquered England, the Flemish Van Dyek 
 made another successful invasion of the island—so successful indeed 
 that all English portrait painting in the future was to feel his 
 influence. 
 
As an artist, Van Dyck was almost the opposite in temperament 
 to Holbein. Holbein was not easily impressionable, and indeed, 
 even if he had been, he would have found little in Tudor painting to 
 influence him. The result was that he imposed a foreign style on 
 English painting, a style, it is true, which the English ended by 
 assimilating and making the vehicle for expressing their own idea 
 of the world. But Van Dyck was a reed shaken by the wind. His 
 exquisite sensibility was at the mercy of all influences. In his 
 youth he painted like his master, Rubens, then he went to Genoa 
 and developed a new style, and when, about 1630, he settled in 
 England, he felt the spirit of the place at once—a spirit already 
 embodied in some of the miniature painters—and he developed 
 his English style, becoming the founder of English portrait painting. 
 He died in 1641. Sir Peter Lely, a Dutchman, held the field until 
 1680. After his death painting again fell into a decline. 
 
 To anyone surveying the history, and speculating on the future 
 of English painting, the prospect about the end of the first quarter 
 of the 18th century must have looked dreary. The past showed 
 two outstanding men of genius, both foreigners—a German and a 
 Dutchman. The first had failed to found an enduring school, and 
 the influence of the second had run into the sands after the death 
 of Sir Peter Lely. No native school had shown any vitality. The 
 only hope would seem to be in another foreigner. It was at this 
 discouraging moment that the English bestirred themselves and 
 produced a school of their own. 
 
 Hogarth was born in 1697. About the end of the first third of 
 the century he started painting and engraving those series of 
 pictures for edification which have made his name famous. The 
 best known of the series is the Marriage a la Mode, the original 
 paintings for which are in the National Gallery in London. He was 
 a prolific painter, and beside moral tales he produced admirable 
 portraits and the enchanting sketch known as the Shrimp Girl. 
 Hogarth is one of the most English of artists. He is the first 
 master of painting on a large scale whom England had produced 
 since the middle ages. His intrinsic importance can hardly be 
 over-estimated, but he had little immediate effect on the course of 
 events. The effective inventor of the English 18th Century por- 
 trait was Sir Joshua Reynolds. 
 
 Reynolds was born in 1723, and early he showed talent as an 
 artist. About the middle of the century he spent three years in 
 Italy—years devoted to an intensive study of the principles of de- 
 sign employed by the old masters, and to an attempt to capture the 
 
secret of Venetian coloring. These studies influenced his future 
 profoundly, and became the basis for the Discourses which he 
 delivered in later years to the students at the Royal Academy. On 
 his return to London he soon found himself the most popular 
 portrait painter in the town, and when the Royal Academy was 
 instituted in 1768 he was made its first president. In 1789 he was 
 stricken with partial biindness and painted no more. 
 
 Sir Joshua has been called the most gifted amateur that England 
 ever produced, and there is an element of truth in this. He never 
 seems quite to know, when he starts a picture, how it is going to 
 turn out; his famous variety ‘‘Damn him, how various he is!” 
 Gainsborough said of him-—comes partly from this uncertainty. 
 At every new picture he is like a man who throws himself into deep 
 water to learn how to swim, and sometimes there is more splashing 
 than progress. Then his incessant preoccupation with processes, 
 with the secrets of the Venetians, has something about it of the 
 amateur’s pathetic humility and simplicity. His drawing is certainly 
 not his strong point, and, though his color is often magnificent, 
 his reckless experimentation with processes in order to obtain it, 
 has led to the decay of many of his finest canvasses. But when all 
 is said and done, he is a superb portrait painter, and has left a 
 gallery of the men and women of his day which is unequalled in 
 variety and charm and interest. The portraits are, no doubt, 
 somewhat idealized, and his success depended no doubt to some 
 extent on the fact that he presented his sitters under an aspect 
 which they themselves found agreeable. The men look perhaps 
 rather noble, they have more likeness to Stoic philosophers than 
 it is given toso many English gentlemen and intellectuals to achieve. 
 But the Englishman of the 18th Century cultivated the Roman 
 virtues and saw himself, in his more imaginative moments, as a 
 kind of Cato or Marcus Aurelius. And Sir Joshua’s women are 
 goddesses. But this comes from no obsequious desire to flatter 
 his sitters. Sir Joshua was the product of his century, and he saw 
 the world, as all artists must see it, through the veil of his own 
 temperament and his own desires. 
 
 No one would venture to call his younger contemporary, Gains- 
 borough, an amateur. He is one of the most accomplished techni- 
 cians who ever painted. He is the least theoretical of artists. It 
 was as if he looked at his sitter, and the portrait appeared on his 
 canvas, he knew not how, called up by a breath, as it were, by a 
 single gesture. No medium seems to exist between his conception 
 and his execution. He has apparently nothing to struggle with. 
 
Paint is his natural language, and he has a fluency, an idiomatic 
 quality, that is unsurpassed. It is interesting to note that Gains- 
 borough was an enthusiast for music; in looking at his art we are 
 irresistibly made to think of music. Nothing more lyrical exists 
 than his portraits of women and children, and his landscapes, for he 
 painted landscapes as well as portraits. The influence of Van Dyck 
 on his vision is clearly perceptible. When he was on his death bed 
 he had to reproach himself with having had ungenerous feelings 
 towards his great rival, Sir Joshua, and desired to see him. His 
 last words to him were ‘We are all going to heaven, and Van Dyck 
 is of the company.” 
 
 Romney in his day shared the popularity of Reynolds and 
 Gainsborough. He immortalized the beauty of Emma Hamilton, 
 and created a type of prettiness which still has its appeal. His 
 portraits are admirably designed. His reputation has had its ups 
 and downs. After his death he was entirely forgotten and interest 
 in him has revived only recently. 
 
 Hoppner was brought up in the shadow of royalty in St. James 
 Palace, where his mother held some vaguely defined position. She 
 was found to be taking bribes, was dismissed, and it devolved on 
 the young John to support the family. A disciple of Reynolds, 
 he later became successful as a painter of royalty and aristocracy, 
 though the competition of Lawrence was always formidable. 
 
 With Hoppner’s death in 1810, the tradition of Sir Joshua, the 
 great tradition of the 18th Century, comes to an end. The new 
 century had different ideals and was pleased by an art less con- 
 sciously preoccupied with style. Lawrence was left master of the 
 situation. 
 
 At his best, Lawrence is an excellent portrait painter, and even 
 when not at his best, he is usually a brilliant sketcher. In his later 
 years he accepted too many commissions, and his work became | 
 perfunctory. He died in 1830. 
 
 Raeburn was in a sense the Sir Josua of Edinburgh. All the 
 most remarkable men and women of the Scottish capital sat to 
 him, and the Edinburgh National Gallery contains an unrivalled 
 collection of his portraits. After the death of Hoppner he had 
 ideas of settling in London, but the crafty Lawrence, who saw in 
 his arrival a dangerous menace to his own supremacy, was able to 
 dissuade him. He died in 18238. 
 
 After the death of Lawrence, English figure painting was left 
 without a head. The academic school produced individual painters 
 of skill, like Etty, who painted exquisite nudes, but there was a 
 
want of purpose, of definite direction in their painting. By the 
 middle of the century things had become so bad that it is not 
 difficult to understand the feelings of the earnest-minded young 
 men who constituted what they called the Pre-Raphaelite Brother- 
 hood. The avowed object of this remarkable association was to 
 return to the principles of painting as it was practiced before the 
 advent of Raphael. It was a revolt against the inanities of academic 
 painting. Whether the members of the Brotherhood, whose most 
 talented members were Rossetti and Millais, knew very much 
 about the painting before Raphael or of the work of Raphael him- 
 self, may be doubted. But what they lacked in knowledge they 
 made up in enthusiasm, and, aided by Ruskin’s persuasive pen, 
 they gradually made their way. Pre-Raphaelism destroyed the 
 tradition of English painting, and it established a new academism 
 from which England has not even yet recovered. 
 
 Beside portrait painting, the other great branch of English 
 painting is landscape. The popularity of landscape painting is 
 quite modern. It is indeed one of the effects of the Romantic 
 movement and of the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Richard 
 Wilson, whowas born in 17138,has been called the Father of English 
 landscape painting. 
 
 Gainsborough painted many landscapes, which have the same 
 lyrical charm as his portraits; but the sitters who entered his 
 studio to have their portraits painted took no interest in such 
 things and few were ever sold. 
 
 The English landscape painter who has made the greatest name 
 in the history of art is Turner. He was born and bred in London. 
 Ruskin devoted much of his long life and indefatigable eloquence 
 to an explanation of his works, and even to-day it is hard not to be 
 influenced in our opinions by the enormous torrent of words that 
 has been poured over us. Turner gradually perfected a remarkable 
 power of seizing and noting down the facts of nature. His youthful 
 paintings are vast storehouses of facts; and this ability never 
 deserted him. In later life he developed a feverish and exasperated 
 style in which his imagination is given rein; and sometimes he 
 produced canvasses that contain hardly any recognizable forms, 
 scarcely more than clotted masses of jewel-like paint. So careless 
 was he of his methods and materials that many of these pictures 
 are now in the last stages of decay, and we can form only a dim idea 
 of what they may once have been. His output was enormous, 
 and beside his oil paintings the public collections of England possess 
 many thousands of water-color drawings, which are among the 
 
most characteristic things he ever produced. Indeed Turner was 
 naturally a water-color painter, and much of the quality of his 
 later oil painting comes from his attempt to force his medium to 
 acquire the qualities of water-color. 
 
 Constable was Turner’s younger contemporary. He spent his 
 youth in East Anglia, in Suffolk, and is the first English landscape 
 painter to look at nature without regard to the traditions of the 
 past. He is the most realistic of landscape painters—the first 
 to whom the visible world has been enough. Indeed the sharp- 
 ness of his observation increased as the years went by, and his later 
 work is sometimes disturbing in its insistence on the glitter of 
 reflected lights. His work was exhibited in Paris in 1821, and the 
 effect it had on Delacroix and through him on the French landscape 
 school was immense. More than any one master he created modern 
 landscape art. 
 
 Water-color landscape has always been a peculiarly English art. 
 All through the 18th Century the topographical draughtsmen had 
 driven their trade, often producing delightful work. Cozens and 
 Girtin raised this craft to a higher level, and painted works in 
 which the temperament of the artist is expressed. Girtin was 
 Turner’s master in the art; and the Norwich school produced a 
 great master in the person of John Sell Cotman, who died in poverty 
 in 1842. 
 
 What have been the principal qualities of English art? It has 
 been by turns moral, lyrical, psychological and other things, but 
 its sense for structure and the logic of form has never been strong; 
 it has not been interested in the great problems of classic art, and 
 its essays in the grand style have been unfortunate. It has been 
 best when simplest and most direct, when it has kept close to the 
 model and attempted no superb flights. There is no English 
 Michelangelo or Poussin or Cezanne. The English painters have 
 fought in few of the great battles of the spirit, and when they have, 
 they have been defeated. Benjamin Haydon was convinced that 
 his was the hand destined to bring back the great tradition of the 
 High Renaissance, that he was to be the Raphael of a new dis- 
 pensation. He committed suicide and there remains of him a 
 fascinating autobiography. It is to Sir Joshua,the portrait painter 
 and the interpreter of the charm of childhood, the attractive 
 colorist, that we turn, rather than to the emulator of Michelangelo 
 and ‘the Bolognese. And Turner’s slighter water colors and early 
 oil paintings will probably have a meaning for us when his more 
 heroic canvasses have become as sounding brass. 
 
The art of the 18th Century in England was perfectly adapted 
 to the life it was intended to adorn. Those were not the days of 
 great public decorations. The English needed pictures to hang up, 
 preferably portraits of the family,—pictures which they could feel 
 at home with. And the furniture, silver and paintings, all became 
 expressions of one spirit, translations, as it were, of the same 
 message into different dialects. And a similar spirit expresses itself 
 in literature, in the works of Chesterfield or Hume or Gibbon. It 
 is not every product of the time that is possessed by this spirit, 
 and, on the other hand, work from a different century may be in- 
 formed by it. Parmigianino and Baroccio are artists of the 16th 
 century but their art smells of the 18th. 
 
 What is the 18th Century spirit? It is an impalpable thing, 
 easy to become aware of but hard to seize. It would probably not 
 be difficult to instance works undoubtedly inspired by it, which yet 
 refused to enter the frame of any definition that might be proposed. 
 But if we feel that the 18th Century has in it anything that is 
 essential for us, we shall do well to glance at the generalizations of 
 the text books, listen respectfully when they speak of the rational- 
 ism of the 18th Century, the elegance, the prettiness, or whatever 
 it may be—glance at these approximations, be duly grateful and 
 pass them by, to steep ourselves in the masterpieces themselves. 
 In this way the reality may become our own, the spirit may speak 
 to our spirit in its own words and in its own way, and, slowly 
 perhaps, we may come to understand. The rest is of less conse- 
 quence—a matter for connoisseurs and historians. 
 
 J. Hopr-JOHNSTONE 
 

 
 No. 14. JOHN HOPPNER, R. A 
 Miss Selina Beresford 
 
 
 
JOHN CONSTABLE, R. A. 
 
 Born at East Bergholt in Suffolk in 1776; died at London in 1837. Learned 
 etching under John Thomas Smith, the engraver. In 1797 took up his father’s 
 business of a miller but in 1799 turned to art again, entering the schools of the 
 Royal Academy. From 1800 to 1802 studied and sketched directly from nature. 
 In 1819 he was elected an Associate of the Royal Academy and in 1829 an Acade- 
 mician. Constable influenced the work of the continental landscape painters of 
 the XIX Century, and modern realistic landscape painting may be said to have 
 begun with him. 
 
 1. SALISBURY CATHEDRAL, FROM THE BISHOP’S GARDEN. 
 Canvas: 35 inches by 443%¢ inches. 
 
 Described by C. R. Leslie in ‘‘Memoirs of the Life of John Constable, Esq., 
 R. A.,” 1843, page 90; by C. J. Holmes in “Constable and his Influence on Land- 
 seape Painting,’ 1902, pages 231 and 246; by C. Reginald Grundy in ‘‘The 
 Connoisseur,” Vol. 35 (1913), pages 73-4. 
 
 Exhibited at Agnew’s Annual Loan Exhibition, London, 1907, No. 26; Inter- 
 national Fine Arts Exhibition, Rome, 1911, No. 15 (lent by Sir Joseph Beecham) . 
 
 From the collections of Mr. Davis of Manchester and Wicken Hall, Hinckley; 
 Mr. Foxwell, 1907; Sir Joseph Beecham. 
 
 Lent by M. Knoedler and Company, New York 
 
 JOHN CONSTABLE, R. A. 
 (Continued) 
 2. THE LOCK ON THE STOUR. 
 Canvas: 241% inches by 30 inches. 
 Lent by Mr. Julius H. Haass, Detroit 
 

 
 No. 4. THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
 
 Anna, Duchess of Hamilton, Countess of DoneZall 
 
JOHN CONSTABLE, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 3. THE GLEBE FARM, DEDHAM. 
 Canvas: 181% inches by 24 inches. 
 Lent by Mr. Joseph. B. Schlotman, Detroit 
 
 THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
 
 Born at Sudbury in 1727; died at London in 1788. At age of fifteen studied 
 etching under Gravelot. Spent three years at Martins Lane Academy under 
 Francis Hayman. Was one of the original members of the Royal Academy at its 
 opening in 1768. Favorite painter of the King and Boe Family. Painter of 
 portraits and landscapes. 
 
 4. ANNE, DUCHESS OF HAMILTON, COUNTESS OF DONEGALL. 
 
 Canvas: 605 inches by 921% inches. 
 
 Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Gainsborough and his Place in English 
 Art,’ 1898, page 197. 
 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, London, 1877. 
 
 From the collection of Baron Templemore, D. 8. O., Dunbrody Park, Arthurs- 
 town, County Wexford, Ireland. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 

 
 No. 5. THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
 William and John Truman-Villekois 
 
THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 5. WILLIAM AND JOHN TRUMAN-VILLEBOIS. 
 
 Canvas: 4 feet 3 inches, by 5 feet 1 inch. 
 Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Gainsborough,” page 203. 
 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy (Old Masters) 1878, and at the Grosvenor 
 Gallery, 1885. 
 
 From the collection of Henry Villebois, Esq. 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. Carll Tucker, New York 
 
 THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 6. RICHARD PAUL JODRELL. 
 
 ‘Canvas: 2414 inches by 29 inches. 
 From the collection of the late George Harland-Peck, Esq., London. 
 
 Formerly an heirloom of the Jodrell family and later in the collection of Joseph 
 Ruston, Esq., Lincoln. 
 
 Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘‘Gainsborough,” page 270. 
 
 Detroit private collection. 
 

 
 No. 9. THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
 
 A Landscape with a Bridge 
 
THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
 (Continued) 
 
 7. THE HON. RICHARD SAVAGE NASSAU DE ZUYLESTEIN. 
 Canvas: 60 inches by 94 inches. 
 
 Mentioned (as James, Fifth Duke of Hamilton) in Sir Walter Armstrong’s 
 “Gainsborough and his Place in English Art’’, 1898, page 197. 
 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, London, 1877. 
 
 From the Collection of Baron Templemore, D. 8. O., Dunbrody Park, Arthurs- 
 town, County Wexford, Ireland. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 
 THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 8. PORTRAIT OF THE TWO CHILDREN OF MRS. GODDARD. 
 ~ Painted in 1788. 
 Canvas: 421% inches by 6314 inches. 
 
 From the collection of Sir Robert Sloper, K. B., Commander in Chief in India. 
 On the death of General Sloper it passed to his son and then to his brother, the 
 Rev. David Williams, D. C. L., who left it to his eldest daughter, Emily, with the 
 reversion to his son the Rev. Henry Blackstone Williams, who bequeathed it to his 
 son, the recent owner. This picture is said to have been the last one painted by 
 Gainsborough. 
 
 Lent by Mr. Colin Agnew, New York 
 
THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 9. A LANDSCAPE WITH A BRIDGE. 
 
 Canvas: 465 inches by 52 inches. 
 
 From the collection of Lord D’Abernon, Ambassador to the Court of St. James 
 at Berlin. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 New York private collection. 
 
 JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 
 
 Born at Whitechapel in 1758; died in London in 1810. Entered Royal Academy 
 as a student in 1775. In 1789 was appointed portrait painter to the Prince of 
 Wales. In 1792 was elected an Associate of the Royal Academy and in 1795 a ful 
 Academician. Exhibited only in Royal Academy where he was represented by 1681 
 pictures in all. Painter of portraits and a few fanciful subjects. 
 
 10. PORTRAIT OF LADY BAGOT. 
 Painted in 1807. 
 
 Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
 Engraved in mezzotint by J. C. Webb, 1904. 
 
 Exhibited in P. and D. Colnaghi’s Gallery, London, 1904, No. 11 (lent by 
 Colonel Bagot, M. P.) 
 
 Catalogued and reproduced in McKay and Roberts’s “John Hoppner, R. A.’’ 
 London, 1914, page 10. 
 
 From the collection of Sir Alan Desmond Bagot, Bart., of Levens Hall, Miln- 
 thorpe, Westmoreland. 
 
 Acquired from M. Knoedler & Company. 
 Lent by Mr. John B. Ford, Detroit 
 
JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 11. MOTHER AND CHILD. 
 Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
 
 Lent by Mr. Ralph H. Booth. Detroit, 
 
 JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 12. A YOUNG GIRL WITH TAMBOURINE. 
 
 Canvas: 56 inches by 92 inches. 
 
 Reproduced in Sir Martin Conway’s “Great Masters from 1400 to 1900’, 
 London. 
 
 From the collection of Arthur de Pass, Esq.; formerly in that of Sir Edward 
 Sullivan. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 
 
JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 13. MISS FRANCES BERESFORD. 
 
 Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
 Engraved in mezzotint by J. B. Pratt, 1900. 
 
 Illustrated in photogravure in McKay and Roberts’s “John Hoppner, R. A.”, 
 London, 1914, page 21, and in half-tone in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘‘Art in Great 
 Britain,’’ London, 1909, page 195. 
 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy (Old Masters), London, 1893, No. 47. 
 
 From the collection of Marcus Trevelyan Martin, Esq., London. Formerly in 
 the collection of Rev. Samuel Martin, Rector of Worksop, Nottingham, who be- 
 queathed it to his son, Major William Martin, whose daughter inherited it after 
 him; this lady in turn left it to her brother, the late owner. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 
 JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 14. MISS SELINA BERESFORD. 
 
 Canvas: 265 inches by 30 inches. 
 
 Engraved in mezzotint by J. B. Pratt, 1900. 
 
 Illustrated in photogravure in McKay and Roberts’s “John Hoppner, R. A. 
 London, 1914, page 165, and in half-tone in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘‘Art in Great 
 Britain,” London, 1909, page 196. 
 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy (Old Masters), London, 1893, No. 23. 
 
 From the colllection of Marcus Trevelyan Martin, Esq., London. Formerly in ~ 
 the collection of the Rev. Samuel Martin, Rector of Worksop, Nottingham, who 
 bequeathed it to his son, Major William Martin, whose daughter inherited it after 
 him; this lady in turn left it to her brother, the late owner. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 
JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 15. SIR THOMAS HARDWICKE, English Architect. 
 Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
 
 In the collection of The Detroit Institute of Arts 
 
 JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 16. THE HON. CHARLOTTE CHETWYND. 
 
 Painted in 1796. 
 
 Canvas: 40 inches by 50 inches. 
 
 Described in McKay and Roberts’s ‘John Hoppner, R. A.,”’ London, 1914, 
 page 49. 
 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy, London, 1798, No. 45; and at Burlington 
 House, Old Masters Exhibition, London, 1906, No. 64. 
 
 From the collection of W. C. Cartwright, Esq., Aynhoe Park, Banbury, Ox- 
 fordshire. 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. B. F. Jones, Pittsburgh 
 

 
 No. 20 SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 
 
 Lady Elizabeth Conyngham 
 
JOHN HOPPNER, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 17. LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD. 
 Canvas: 241% inches by 291% inches. 
 Acquired from the Howard Young Galleries. 
 
 Lent by Mr. Joseph B. Schlotman, Detroit. 
 
 SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 
 
 Born in Bristol in 1769; died in London in 1830. Made Associate of the Royal 
 Academy at age of twenty-one. At age of twenty-five was elected full Academi- 
 clan. Knighted by the Prince Regent in 1815. From 1816 to 1820 made tour of 
 Europe, painting the portraits of many prominent people. In 1820 he returned to 
 London to find himself elected President of the Royal Academy. Member of the 
 American Academy of Fine Arts; Academy of St. Luke; Academies of Vienna, 
 Florence, Venice, Copenhagen and Bologna. Painter of portraits. 
 
 18. PORTRAIT OF MRS. BEWICKE. 
 Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
 Recorded in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘‘Lawrence”’ under the name of Berwick; 
 
 and in Lord Ronald Gower’s “Life of Sir Thomas Lawrence’’. 
 
 Lent by Mr. John B. Ford, Detroit 
 
SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 19. MRS. THOMSON AND HER CHILD. 
 
 Canvas: 58 inches by 88 inches. 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1804. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 
 
 SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 
 (Continued) 
 
 20. LADY ELIZABETH CONYNGHAM. 
 Canvas: 40 inches by 50 inches. 
 Engraved by Richard Smyth. 
 Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘‘Lawrence.”’ 
 
 Formerly in the collection of the Marquess Conyngham at Slane Castle, County 
 Meath, Ireland. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 
 
SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 
 (Continued) 
 
 Zi. MRS. G. F. STRATTON. 
 
 Painted in 1811. 
 Canvas: 583%4 inches by 94 inches. 
 Engraved by Charles Turner, A. R. A., and published as ‘““A Lady and Dog.”’ 
 
 Recorded in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Lawrence’’, page 165, London, 1913; 
 Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower’s “Sir Thomas Lawrence’’, page 161; Alfred 
 Whitman’s “Nineteenth Century Mezzotinters: Charles Turner’, London, 1917. 
 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy, 1811. 
 
 From the collection of the descendants of George Frederick Stratton, Esq., 
 of Great Tew, Oxford. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York. 
 
 SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 22. LADY MARIA CONYNGHAM. 
 
 Canvas: 28 inches by 36 inches. 
 Engraved by Norman Hurst. 
 Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘“‘Lawrence’’. 
 
 Formerly in the collection of Marquess Conyngham at Slane Castle, County 
 Meath, Ireland. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 
 
SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 23. MRS. WILLIAM LOCKE. 
 
 Canvas: 40 inches by 50 inches. 
 Described in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘“‘Lawrence’’, London, 1913, page 147. 
 
 From the collection of M. Eugene Fischof, Paris. Formerly in the collection of 
 Lord Wallscourt, Aldfry, County Galway, Ireland, who inherited it from his 
 mother, Lady Wallscourt, only daughter of Mrs. Locke of Norbury Park. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 
 SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 24. THE KING OF ROME, SON OF NAPOLEON I. 
 Canvas: 13 inches by 14 inckes. 
 
 Lent by Mr. Ralph H. Booth, Detroit 
 
SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 
 
 Born in Stockbridge, Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1756; died there in 1823. At age 
 of fifteen was apprenticed to an Edinburgh goldsmith and jeweler and later studied 
 for a short time with David Martin, the leading portrait painter in the city. In - 
 1785 he went to London where he met Reynolds in whose studio he is said to have 
 worked for a few weeks and by whom he was advised to go to Rome, where he 
 spent two years. He returned to Edinburgh in 1787 where he became the leading 
 portrait painter in Scotland. It is estimated that he painted over one thousand 
 portraits. He was elected an Associate of the Royal Academy in 1812 and full 
 Academician in 1815. 
 
 25. PORTRAIT OF PROFESSOR ANDREW DALZEL, F. R. 8. 
 
 Painted in 1797 or 1798. 
 
 Canvas: 391% inches by 4934 inches. 
 
 Engraved by R. C. Bell, 1862. 
 
 Exhibitedin the Loan Exhibition of Old Masters, San Francisco, No. 119. 
 
 From the collection of the late Surgeon Major W. F. B. Dalzel, grandson of 
 Professor Andrew Dalzel. 
 
 ~ Lent by M. Knoedler and Company, New York 
 
 SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 26. THE HON. MRS. GRANT OF KILGRASTEN. 
 
 Canvas: 24 inches by 30 inches. 
 
 Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Sir Henry Raeburn’, London, 1901, 
 page 103; Greig’s “Sir Henry Raeburn, R. A.”, London, 1911, page 47. 
 
 Exhibited at the French Gallery, London, 1911, and illustrated in the catalogue, 
 
 No. 9. 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 

 
 No. 33. SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 
 The Strawberry Girl 
 
SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 27. MRS. ANDREW HAY. 
 
 Canvas: 391% inches by 481% inches. 
 
 Formerly in the collection of Commander Thomas Edward Hall Maxwell, R. N., 
 great grandson of General and Mrs. Hay. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 
 
 SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 28. MRS. IRVINE J. BOSWELL. 
 
 Painted about 1820. 
 
 Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
 
 Engraved by Norman Hurst. 
 
 Illustrated and mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Sir Henry Raeburn’, 
 London, 1901, page 96, pl. L.; James L. Caw’s “Portraits of Sir Henry Raeburn’’, 
 London, 1909, page 13; mentioned in James Greig’s ‘Sir Henry Raeburn, R. A.’, 
 London, 1911, page 39. 
 
 Exhibited at the French Gallery, London, 1911, and illustrated in the catalogue, 
 Now 11: 
 
 ~- From the collection of Colonel Walter Brown, of Renfrew. Formerly in that of 
 J. Irvine Fortesque, Esq. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 

 
 No. 34. SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 
 The Holy Family 
 
SIR HENRY RAEBURN, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 29. THE HON. HENRY DAVID ERSKINE, XII EARL OF BUCHAN 
 
 Canvas: 40 inches by 50 inches. 
 Mentioned in Sir Walter Armstrong’s “Life of Raeburn’, page 101. 
 Exhibited at Grafton Gallery, Scottish Old Masters, 1895. 
 
 In the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts. 
 
 SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 
 
 Born at. Plympton in Devonshire, in 1723; died in London in 1792. Went to 
 London in 1740 where he studied under Thomas Hudson, the best known portrait 
 painter of the time. In 1749 he went to Rome where he remained for two years. 
 He returned to London in 1752 and established himself as a portrait painter, 
 painting portraits of wealthy society people as well as many members of the Royal 
 Family. Helped to organize the Royal Academy and was elected its first president 
 in 1769, a position which he continued to fill until his death. 
 
 30. THE TWO CHILDREN OF BENJAMIN VAN DER GUCHT AS 
 “THE CHILDREN IN THE WOOD”. 
 Engraved by J. Caldwell and 8S. W. Reynolds. 
 Canvas: 2514 inches by 30 inches. 
 Catalogued in ‘‘Reynolds” by Graves and Cronin, 1901, Vol. IV, page 1426, and 
 in Vol. II, page 596, and in ‘‘Reynolds” by Sir Walter Armstrong, 1900, page 238. 
 Mentioned in ‘‘Reynolds”’ by Leslie and Taylor, 1865, pages 481 and 484. 
 
 From the collections of Benjamin Van der Gucht, for whom it was painted; 
 Wynn Ellis, Esq.; Brodie A. Willcox, Esq.; Gen. Benjamin Van der Gucht; Gen. 
 Thomas Van der Gucht; the Misses Van der Gucht. 
 
 Lent by M. Kncedler and Company, New York 
 
SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 31. SIR BROOKE BOOTHBY, BART. 
 
 Canvas: 24 inches by 29 inches. 
 
 Engraved by J. R. Smith, 1797. 
 
 Catalogued in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘“‘Reynolds’’, page 195. 
 
 Exhibited in the Derby (Midland Counties) Exhibition, 1870. 
 In the collection of The Detroit Institute of Arts. 
 
 SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 32. THE HON. THERESA PARKER. 
 
 Painted in 1787. 
 Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches. 
 Engraved by Norman Hurst. 
 
 Exhibited at the Grafton Galleries, London, 1895, No. 100, and again in 1913-14 
 (Exhibition of Woman and Child in Art), No. 21. 
 From the collection of the Right Hon. Earl of Morley, Saltran Manor, Plymp- 
 ton, Devonshire. 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 
SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 33. THE STRAWBERRY GIRL. 
 Painted in 1773. 
 Canvas: 24 inches by 29 inches. 
 Engraved by T. Watson, 1774, and R. Marcuard. 
 
 Mentioned in James Northcote’s “Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds’, Vol. II, page 7, 
 1813, and in Leslie and Taylor’s “Life of Reynolds’’, Vol. 2, page 3, 1865. 
 
 Exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery, London, 1884, No. 86. 
 
 Originally in the collection of Lady George Gordon who bequeathed it to Major, 
 afterwards Colonel Copley Wray. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mrs. Francis F. Prentiss, Cleveland 
 
 SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS, P. R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 G47 Loe HOLY FAMILY. 
 
 Canvas: 57 inches by 77 inches. 
 From the collection of the late William Angerstein, Esq., Weeting Hall, Norfolk. 
 
 Lent by Mr. H. E. Huntington, San Marino, California 
 

 
 No. 36. GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 Captain William Kirkpatrick 
 
GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 Born at Walton-le-Furness, Lancashire, in 1734; died at Ulverston, 1802. Ap- 
 prenticed to the painter, Christopher Steele, in 1755. After 1763 he became, with 
 Reynolds and Gainsborough, one of the most popular portrait painters of his day. 
 In 1773 he went to Italy where he remained for two years. Returned to London 
 in 1775 and during the next twenty years painted over 2000 portraits. 
 
 35. BARBARA, MARCHIONESS OF DONEGALL. 
 
 Painted in 1792. 
 Canvas: 5814 inches by 9434 inches. 
 
 Mentioned in Humphrey Ward and W. Roberts’s ‘‘“Romney, a Biographical and 
 Critical Essay’, Vol. II, page 45. 
 
 From the collection of Baron Templemore, D. 8. O., Dunbrody Park, Arthurs- 
 town, County Wexford, Ireland. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 
 GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 36. CAPTAIN WILLIAM KIRKPATRICK. 
 
 Painted in 1785. 
 Canvas: 40 inches by 50 inches. 
 Described in Ward and Roberts’s ““Romney’’, Vol. II, 1904, page 99. 
 
 From the collection of Sir Henry Strachey, Bart., Sutton Court, Pensford, 
 Somerset. Bequeathed by General Kirkpatrick to his daughter Lady Louis, from 
 whom it passed to her daughter, Miss Maria Louis, who gave the picture to Sir 
 Edward Strachey, Bart., whose mother was a daughter of General Kirkpatrick. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. B. F. Jones, Pittsburgh 
 

 
 No. 38. GEORGE ROMNEY 
 Richard Brinsley Sheridan 
 
GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 37. LADY BEAUCHAMP-PROCTOR. 
 Painted in 1782-83. 
 Canvas: 58 inches by 93 inches. 
 
 Described and illustrated in Ward and Roberts’s “Romney” Vol. II, page 127, 
 plate facing same page; mentioned and illustrated in Spielmann’s “British 
 Portrait Painting’’, Vol. II, page 12, plate 70; illustrated in Sir Walter Armstrong’s 
 ‘‘Art in Great Britain’’, London, 1909, page 189. 
 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy (Old Masters Exhibition), London, 1878, 
 No. 137, and in 1888, No. 157. 
 
 From the collection of E. L. Raphael, Esq., Connaught Place, London, W. 
 Formerly in the collection of Sir Reginald Beauchamp-Proctor and afterwards in 
 that of Lord Burton. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 
 GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 38. RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN, celebrated Irish orator and dram- 
 atist. (1751-1816). 
 
 Canvas: 52 inches by 87 inches. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by the George J. Gould Estate, New York 
 

 
 No. 40. GEORGE ROMNEY 
 John Walter Tempest 
 
GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 39. WILLIAM BECKFORD. 
 
 Canvas: 52 inches by 64 inches. 
 
 Described and illustrated by H. Avary Tipping in “Country Life’, London, 
 October 25, 1919, pages 514-516. 
 
 From the collection of the late Duke of Hamilton, Hamilton Palace, Lanark- 
 shire, Scotland. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. E. T. Stotesbury, Philadelphia 
 
 GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 40. JOHN WALTER TEMPEST. 
 
 Painted in 1780. 
 Canvas: 58 inches by 91 inches. 
 _ Engraved in mezzotint by James Walker, 1781. 
 
 Illustrated and described in M. H. Spielmann’s “British Portrait Painting,” 
 Vol. II, 1910, page 8, pl. 76; “Exhibition of Old Masters’, Berlin, 1908, No. 85, 
 pl. 41; and by A. Grisebach in “Die Kunst ftir Alle’. April 1908, frontispiece. 
 Described in H. Ward and W. Roberts’s “Rommey’”’; Catalogue Raisonné’’, 
 Vol. II, 1904, page 155. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 Lent by Mrs. Marshall Field, Long Island 
 
 GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 41. MRS. BRACEBRIDGE AND DAUGHTER. 
 
 Painted 1781-1784. 
 Canvas: 4 feet by 5 feet 2 inches. 
 
 Mentioned in A. Davidson’s ‘‘A History of the Holtes of Aston,’ 1854, and 
 described in Ward and Roberts’s ‘‘Romney,” Vol. II, pages 16-17, 1904. 
 
 From the collection of the Rev. Prebendary Compton, Atherstone Hall, War- 
 wickshire, who succeeded to the estate of C. Holte Bracebridge, Esq., in 1872. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. E. Stotesbury, Philadelphia. 
 
GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 42. MISS KITTY CALCRAFT. 
 
 Painted in 1787 or 1788. 
 Canvas: 39 inches by 49 inches. 
 
 Described in Ward and Roberts’s ‘““Romney’’, Vol. II, page 23; and mentioned 
 in Sir Herbert Maxwell’s ‘‘George Romney’’, 1902, page 172. 
 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy, 1895, No. 3. 
 From the collection of W. M. Calcraft, Esq., Rampston, Corfe Castle, Dorset; 
 afterward in that of the late Edward Marston, Esq., F. R. G.S., Adelphi, London. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York 
 
 GEORGE ROMNEY 
 (Continued) 
 
 43. EMMA, LADY HAMILTON, AS “MIRTH”. 
 
 Painted in 1791. 
 Canvas: 4514 inches by 564% inches. 
 Engraved by J. B. Pratt in mezzotint, 1905. 
 
 Mentioned in Ward and Roberts’s ‘“Romney”’, Vol. II, page 181; Arthur B. 
 Chamberlain’s ‘““Romney Folio’, London, 1911; illustrated in E. Hallam Moor- 
 house’s ‘‘Nelson’s Lady Hamilton’’, London, 1908, page 24. 
 
 Exhibited at the Agnew Galleries, London, 1904, No. 20. 
 
 From the collection of Thomas William, First Earl of Lichfield, Orgreave Hall, 
 Lichfield; afterward in the collections of John Christian Carwen, Esq., York; 
 Thomas Challoner, Esq., Chester; Charles J. Wertheimer, Esq., London; and 
 E. G. Raphael, Esq., London. 
 
 Lent by Sir Joseph Duveen, New York. 
 
GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 44. THOMAS GROVE, OF FERN, WILTS. 
 1759-1847. 
 
 Painted in 1788. 
 
 Canvas: 39 inches by 49 inches. 
 
 Described in Ward and Roberts’s ‘“Romney’’, page 67. 
 Exhibited in Old Masters Exhibition, 1881, No. 11. 
 From the collection of Sir Thomas F. Grove, Fern, Wilts. 
 
 Lent by Mr. John B. Ford, Detroit 
 
 GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 45. PORTRAIT OF THE PAINTER, J. M. W. TURNER. 
 Canvas: 24 inches by 29 inches. 
 Formerly in the possession of the Turner family. 
 Acquired from Thomas Agnew and Sons. 
 Lent by Mrs. John 8. Newberry, Detroit 
 
 GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 46. COLONEL JAMES CLITHEROW 
 
 Painted in 1784. 
 Canvas: 25 inches by 30 inches 
 Mentioned in Ward and Roberts’s ‘‘Romney’’, pages 30-31. 
 
 From the collection of Dr. Clarence Cooper, Egglesfield House, Brentford 
 Butts, Middlesex, England. Formerly in that of the Clitherow Family, Boston 
 House, Brentford, Middlesex, England. 
 
 Detroit private collection 
 
GEORGE ROMNEY 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 47. OLIVER GOLDSMITH. 
 Canvas: 241% inches by 2914 inches. 
 Catalogued in Ward and Roberts’s ‘““Romney’’, page 61. 
 Exhibited at Old Masters Exhibition, London, 1877, No. 275. 
 Acquired from Wildenstein and Company, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. Julian Harris, Detroit 
 
 JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM TURNER, R. A. 
 
 Born in London in 1775; died there in 1851. Studied perspective under T. 
 Malton, architecture from Mr. Hardwick, water color drawing from Dr. Monro, 
 and painting in oils for a short period under Sir Joshua Reynolds. In 1789 he 
 became a student of the Royal Academy. In 1899 he was elected an Associate 
 Member of the Academy and in 1802 an Academician. In 1819 he made a trip 
 to Italy which had a great influence on his work, particularly his use of color. 
 Painter of landscapes in oils and water colors and of numerous sketches. 
 
 48. THE DELUGE. 
 
 Painted in 18438. 
 Canvas: 2934 inches by 2934 inches. 
 Described in Sir Walter Armstrong’s ‘Life of Turner’. 
 
 Lent by Mr. Howard Young, New York 
 
 JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM TURNER, R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 49. LUCERNE. 
 Water color: 12 inches by 1814 inches. 
 Lent by Mr. Joseph B. Schlotman, Detroit 
 
JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM TURNER R. A. 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 49a. FLORENCE. 
 Water color: 13 inches by 20 inches. 
 Lent by Mr. Joseph B. Schlotman, Detroit 
 
 SIR ANTHONY VAN DYCK 
 
 Born at Antwerp in 1599; died at London in 1641. Pupil of Hendrik van 
 Balen from 1609, later of Rubens, with whom he lived for about four years. He 
 was still acting as Rubens’s assistant in 1620, although he had been admitted as 
 master to the Antwerp Corporation of Painters in 1618. From 1623 to 1628 he 
 visited Italy, dividing his time between Venice, Genoa and Rome. In 1628 he 
 returned to Antwerp and about 1630 to 1631 he went to England, where he had 
 been once before, in 1621. In 1632 he settled for the remainder of his life in 
 England, where his very successful career as a portrait painter enabled him to 
 live in great style. 
 
 50. SIR ROBERT RICH, Second Earl of Warwick. 
 
 Canvas: 49 inches by 83 inches. 
 
 Exhibited at the Royal Academy, 1877 and 1893. 
 
 From the collection of Major the Honorable Thomas G. Breadalbane Morgan- 
 Grenville-Gavin, M. C., Longton, Duns, Scotland. Formerly owned by John, 
 Second Marquis of Breadalbane, and bequeathed by him to his sister, Lady 
 Elizabeth Pringle, from whom it descended to her daughter, the Hon. Mrs. 
 Baillie Hamilton, and thence to her sister, Magdalen Breadalbane, Lady Harvey, 
 who in turn left it to Major Gavin. 
 
 Acquired from Duveen Brothers, New York. 
 
 Lent by Mr. Jules S. Bache, New York. 
 
‘ 
 . 
 ed 
 : 
 
 res 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ae A 
 ‘ * 
 | y ; hah 
 ; , | é | 
 ; : 
 =) ! ; 
 L s 
 ; i 
 ; }