JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. This Edition is limited to joo copies for sale in Great Britain and the United States. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/johnzoffanyrahisOOmann tyn (fazu/K /v/ /um,zelf' JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. HIS LIFE AND WORKS. 1735-1810 BY LADY VICTORIA MANNERS and DR. G. C. WILLIAMSON £ & LONDON: JOHN LANE, THE BODLEY HEAD NEW YORK: JOHN LANE COMPANY MCMXX Printed in Great Britain ly R. Clay < 5 ^ Sons , Ltd. } London and Bungay. ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA Desborough, Lady, Panshanger , Hertford. The other picture named on p. 192, is a portrait, full length, of George, Earl Cowper, about 24 x 18. There is a replica of this picture in the possession of Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Walter Kerr, G.C.B., of Brocket Hall. Eiloart, Mrs. Bernard, 55, Cathcart Road, Earls Court, London. Group representing her great grandfather, General William Palmer with his wife, a Begum of Delhi, and their three children. General Palmer was at one time a Private Secretary to Warren Hastings. He died May 20th, 1816, and his wife in May, 1828. A large picture, which in parts appeared to be unfinished. Kerr-Lawson, Mr. J., 3, Turner Studios, Glebe Place, Chelsea, S. IV. FURTHER ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA Anson, Admiral Lord Frederick. On the plate opposite p. 40 there is a misprint Auson for Anson. On page 107, for “ Daniel ” read “ Daniell.” Garrick and Mrs. Cibber. On the plate opposite page 146 there is a misprint of “ Belvedera,” for “ Belvidera.” On page 171, for “ Roma ” read “ Poma.” On page 175, omit the dates (1693-1758): they refer to Dr. Sharp’s father who was also Archdeacon of Northumberland, and not to the Dr. Sharp in the picture. On page 242, for latter read last. On the colour plate facing p. 150 and in the List of Plates, the printers have put Queensborough instead of Queenborough. The similar entries in the book are correct. New Discoveries. Mrs. Esdaile, of 59, Ladbroke Grove, London, possesses a water-colour drawing of Norwood Green which bears an inscription to the effect that it is by Zoffany. It is clear that Zoffany did paint at Norwood, as on p. 290 there is an allusion to a drawing of Gipsies at Norwood. It may therefore be taken for granted that the inscription, clearly an old one, is probably correct, although the drawing is not of the kind one usually gives to Zoffany. Sir Ernest Robertson, Bart., of Purneah, Bengal, has a portrait of Sir George Abercromby Robinson, Bart, (of 1832), which is said to be by Zoffany. escaped his attention. Northwich Park Collection. It should have been stated that the picture alluded to on p. 222 is the property of Capt. Spencer-Churchill and that it represents a scene from a play stated to include Garrick, Mrs. Betterton, and someone else who has been styled Mr. Betterton but who is more likely to be Mr. Cibber. It is a good picture and about 36 x 35. Dr. Lionel Cust, who is preparing a catalogue of the pictures in the gallery, has supplied us with this information. p. 35, 11 . 2, 5 , for Dolland read Dollond. p. 53, 1 . 24, for Cosways read Cosway’s, p. 54, 1 . 9 , for Humphrey’s read Humphry’s, p. 99 ) 1 - l)lif or Serampur read Serampore. p. in, 11 . 26, 27, for Cater read Gator. p. 136, note 2, for Tremamando in two places read Tremamondo. p. 172, 1 . 1, for Maria Walpole (Duchess of Gloucester) read Maria Walpole (Countess Waldegrave), Duchess of Gloucester. Printed in Gre.it Britain By R. Clay Sons, Ltd., Letuion and B’l MRS. GARRICK IN III K YOUTH EARLY DAYS 9 each side the gate that opened into the area before the house. Garrick, by chance, passing that way, saw these specimens, admired them, and inquired for the painter. The interview ended in his employing the artist to paint himself in small, and hence were produced those admired subjects in which our Roscius made so conspicuous a figure.” In the Earwig , which is a descriptive pamphlet of the Royal Academy of 1781, and is said to have been written by Mauritius Lowe, is a curious introduction into which the author has dragged, for no apparent reason, some notes about Zoffany’s drunkenness and destitution when he was working for Benjamin Wilson. 1 They allude to the fact, if fact it is, that Zoffany entered into a contract to paint drapery for Wilson for three years, and was to be paid £250 for the first year, £350 for the second, and £500 for the third; but after receiving an advance of £50, and instructions to paint some blue silk drapery, which he did not specially admire, he disappeared and Wilson was unable to find him. Many weeks afterwards, the Earwig says, he was discovered in an ale-house in St. Anne’s, Soho, without shoes, engaged in making sketches of the frequenters of the ale-house, in return for the drinks supplied to him. He was rescued and set to other work, but Wilson strove to bring him back to the original contract, and there was some considerable difficulty before an arrangement was made by which the contract should be broken and Zoffany allowed to work for himself. The book in question is dedicated to Reynolds, and it also refers to Zoffany’s picture of 1781 — the Sharp family in the barge — which it declares in tout ensemble is abominable, but as regards its separate figures, many of them were good. It says that the scaly monster behind the barge resembles Apollo on Parnassus. The whole article is written in a spirit of rather bitter satire, and the statements it contains do not seem likely to be true. 2 Smith is far more reasonable in the amount of salary he mentions (£40), and Wilson’s par- simony would surely have never permitted him to pay such fees as the Earwig mentions. It is, however, quite possible Wilson soon discovered that in Zoffany he had found a treasure, and endeavoured to bind him to work in the studio for a period of years with an increasing pay for each year, but the Earwig article seems written with the express purpose of doing Zoffany some discredit. We need not, therefore, attach much importance to the Earwig statements, as they are wholly unsupported by any other allusions or documents. That some disagreement between Wilson and Zoffany took place is quite certain, but of what nature it was we do not know. 1 See B. M. 11630. e. 10 (1), 1781. 2 We are indebted to Mr. W. T. Whitley for drawing our attention to this article. 10 JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. However it came about, this also is certain, that Zoffany left both the workshop of Rimbault and the studio of Wilson, and, encouraged by Garrick and by numerous other actors to whom Garrick introduced him, determined to devote his attention to portrait painting and ^specially to the representation of theatrical scenes, for which his neat and careful work and his excellent manner of representing costume, made him specially suitable. Thenceforward we know him exclusively as a painter of portraits and groups. He entered himself as a pupil at the St. Martin’s Lane Academy and joined the newly-founded Society of Artists, exhibiting in its gallery in 1762 the first of his theatrical groups, and at once scoring a success by it. This first picture (138), which represented Garrick in the character of the Farmer returned from London, received the special distinction of being praised by Horace Walpole and in no measured terms. “ Good,” said Walpole, “ like the actors,” “ and the whole better,” he adds, with a burst of extraordinary enthusiasm, “ than Hogarth’s.” We can form our own opinion of the value of this criticism, for the picture is still in existence. It belongs to the Earl of Durham and came directly into the collection at Lambton Castle from Garrick’s sale. Wal- pole’s praise is well justified, although we hesitate to go as far as he did in its praise, but the composition is excellent, the colour scheme admirable, the technique neat and adequate, and the manner of painting so good that the picture has stood exceedingly well and is still a pleasing work in every way. The companion work, equally good, and representing Garrick and Mrs. Cibber as Jaffier and Belvidera (137), is in the same collection. It appeared at the Exhibition of the Society of Artists in the following year (1763), and both paintings passed direct to Garrick and remained in his possession all his life. Zoffany, it is clear, had found himself, and the result of long years of difficulty and privation was seen in a fully-equipped genius well-fitted for the work to be accomplished. When first he came to England our artist appears to have been known as Zauffely, and this was probably his original Czech name. By 1762 the word had become to a certain extent anglicised and more easy of pronunciation. It is spelled in the early catalogues as Zaffanii or Zaffanij, 1 and then a little later in catalogues of 1768 — 1770 as Zoffanij, the “ a ” having become an “ o ” with a corresponding greater ease in pronuncia- tion and perhaps greater euphony, but by the time the artist became a 1 The “ ij ” suffix to the name, would, according to Slavonic rules, denote the possessive case, and the name would mean “ of Zoffa,” if there be such a place. Coll, of the Earl of Durham GARRICK AND MRS. CIBBER IN “ THE FARMER’S RETURN” From Garrick's Sale " **• EARLY DAYS ii Royal Academician the foreign affix of “ ij ” had given place to the English “ y ” and Zoffany he became from that time and was so styled both in English documents and in those issued on the Continent. His Christian name, however, he does not seem to have wholly anglicised, and he signed himself Johan, or Johann, using the former for his signature to his will. We have just alluded to Zoffany’s two Garrick pictures of 1762 and 1763, but in addition to these he exhibited a family group and three portraits. The portraits were anonymous, as was the custom of the day, and we have not been able to identify them, but, thanks to Walpole’s notes on his catalogue, we know that the group (140, 1763) represented “ Mr. Palmer the actor, looking at his wife and a little boy in her lap.” Walpole goes no further ; he does not comment on the excellence of the work, and we have not been able to trace the picture despite this description of it. Zoffany’s success in these two years was such that he was enabled to change his lodgings and take rooms in the most aristocratic district which artists affected at the time, that of the neighbourhood of Covent Garden. Here in the Great Piazza he settled down, and we are told that he had fine “ light rooms,” “ with great windows ” and “ plenty of honest furniture ” in them. Here it was that he first began to be well-known, especially in theatrical circles, and amongst other acquaintances who knew him in these rooms was John Hamilton Mortimer, R.A. Henry Angelo, 1 in his Reminiscences thus describes the scenes which took place between the two artists, and indirectly acquaints us with the fact that Zoffany had a strong foreign accent in speaking. Angelo writes thus — “ The late John Hamilton Mortimer, an artist whose great and promising talent, but for his own thoughtlessness, would have raised him to the highest rank amongst painters, ancient or modern, resided for some years over the shop of the well-known Jemmy Moran, the bookseller. Here he was visited by Garrick, Sterne, Churchill, Goldsmith, Quin, Caleb Whiteford, Albany Wallace, Malone, Stevens, all the tiptop dramatic writers, players, sculptors and 1 Henry Angelo (1760 — 1839?) was the eldest son of Domenico Angelo Malevolti Tremamondo, the fencing-master (1716 — 1802), who in England assumed the simpler name of Angelo, and dropped his original patronymic of Tremamondo, which, however, his younger brother continued in formal documents to use. 12 JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. painters. His studio was indeed the morning lounge of many distinguished noblemen, and almost all the professional men of talent of his day. 1 “ Mortimer’s portrait, whole-length, is introduced in the picture of the Royal Academicians, painted by Zoffany, which picture he began at his apartments at the Great Piazza, Zoffany residing here also, in the year 1764. “ Mortimer and he were very intimate, until one day, whilst sitting for his portrait, Zoffany began to play off his wit against the authority of Scripture, and turn the Old Testament into burlesque. Mor- timer, though a bofi-vivant, and a choice wit, having too much sense of propriety to endure this, called him an ass, which, abstracted of his professional talent, was not far from the truth. Zoffany, highly offended at this, for he was as vain as he was weak, bade Mortimer quit his room, which he did, but not without first giving him such a lecture as he might have well remembered, had he not been too much addicted to this weakness, which lasted him even to old age. But what gave the greater offence, it seems, was a repartee which closed the dispute — and then the door, which Mortimer shut with a loud bang. ‘ Why, Sir Godfrey Kneller thought upon the subject as I think,’ said Zoffany. ‘ Perhaps so,’ replied the other, ‘ and when you can paint half as well as he, then you may prate. To be a bad painter, and a fool to boot, is rather too much to bear, Master Zoffany.’ “ Mortimer was a man of fine personal appearance, of great gaiety of manners, and a most delightful companion. He had, moreover, an excellent heart. “ He, and a knot of worthies, principally ‘ Sons of St Luke,’ or the children of Thespis, and mostly votaries of Bacchus, met at the Turk’s Head, in Gerrard Street. Here, one evening, he happened to be sitting in the common coffee-room, wherein were a mixed company, taking their punch and smoking, the prevailing custom of the time. Theophilus Forrest, an honest lawyer and amateur artist, well-known to all the coterie at the Turk’s Head, both above and below stairs, happened to drop in ; the landlord, Swindon, a worthy German, handed him a petition, from the widow of a journey- man coach-painter, who had lately died suddenly in Long Acre, and had left her and several children totally destitute. Forrest took the petition into the public parlour, entered his subscription, five shillings, and pinned it over the chimney-piece, that it might be seen by the guests, saying, ‘ I shall open a book here,’ placing his 1 Reminiscences of Henry Angelo, I. 106. Coll, of Dr G. C. Williamson DAVID GARRICK (1717-1779) From Ganich Sale , June, 1823 PENCIL AND WASH DRAWING ON PAPER EARLY DAYS i3 pocket-book upon the table, ‘ and be widow’s clerk till twelve, when, gentlemen, by your leave, we will close the account.’ “ Several of the company entered their names for crowns, half- crowns, and shillings. Mortimer was seated under a brass sconce, reading the St. James's Chronicle , when, calling for pen and ink, he began to sketch groups of monsters, heads, caricatures, figures and grotesques, upon the margin. It is well-known that he drew not only with greater rapidity, but with greater spirit and grace than any one, not excepting, perhaps, even Guercino himself. Hence, an hour at least before the time appointed, he had entirely filled the whole of the blank four pages. “ * What are you about, Mortimer ? ’ inquired one. ‘ What an industrious fit, Hamilton ! ’ exclaimed another, but he persisted nevertheless, nor would he allow any one to look at his performances until his task was done ; when getting upon the table, and spreading his work to view, he began, in imitation of Cock, the celebrated auctioneer : ‘ This lot, gentlemen, this matchless lot, this unique effort of art, the property of a great amateur — of wine and venison — and a renowned connoisseur in tobacco and punch, is offered to the notice of the cognos. It is to be disposed of without reserve. Come, gentlemen, shall I say ten pounds — five — one pound, gentlemen, — yea, even five shillings — anything for a beginning ? ’ “ ‘ I offare von guinea, mine friend Mortimare,’ said Zoffany, who happened to be in the next box. ‘ Thank you, sir,’ returned Mor- timer, with a forgiving smile. ‘ Charity covereth a multitude of sins.’ ‘ Guinea and a half,’ said another. ‘ Two guineas,’ said Zoffany. ‘ Give me your hand,’ cried Mortimer. ‘ Ton mine soul, ’tis peaudiful,’ added Zoffany. ‘ Two and a half,’ said Caleb Whiteford : and so the worthies, with that generous competition which is so catching in glorious old England, when the object is charity, pushed it on, until the lot was knocked down for five guineas, to some good soul, whose name I regret to say I cannot record.” Another friend whose acquaintance Zoffany made at this time was Richard Wilson, and the three men became very intimate, were in and out of each other’s studios and at times even worked upon the same picture. Ozias Humphry, and Romney, it will be remembered, are said to have both of them worked on the famous picture of the Ladies Waldegrave. Wilson painted Mortimer’s portrait, and it is to be seen in the Diploma Gallery of the Royal Academy, and he put in, it is said, the landscape backgrounds for at least three of Zoffany’s groups. Zoffany, on his H JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. part, painted — so it is stated — the figures in the foregrounds of several of Wilson’s groups, while Mortimer did others, notably those for Wilson’s “ Niobe ” now in the National Gallery. It is furthermore a tradition in the family that in two instances all three artists collaborated, Wilson doing the background of landscape, Mortimer the figures in the nude and Zoffany the costumes or draperies that covered them. Certainly several of Zoffany’s groups have landscape backgrounds that recall the work of Wilson, and Wilson’s landscapes have figures that closely resemble those of Zoffany, so we may well suppose that the tradition is founded upon fact. Zoffany is also declared to have assisted Wilson’s pupil, William Hodges, in his productions, and in several instances to have painted the figures for him, and this may account for the fact that certain pictures, indubitably by Hodges, have at times passed as works of Zoffany. One landscape by Hodges exhibited at the Pantheon ( circa 1770) was expressly stated at the time to have the figures in it painted by Zoffany. For nearly two years Zoffany lived in the Great Piazza, 1 and while there produced one of his ablest theatrical pictures, the portrait of Foote in the character of Major Sturgeon in The Mayor of Garratt (140). This is now the property of the Earl of Carlisle. Walpole thought exceedingly well of it. He drew attention to the fact that Baddeley also comes into it, that it did not represent Foote alone, and that this fact should have been mentioned in the catalogue; and then he proceeds to call it “ A very fine likeness, a picture of great humour.” Angelo, also, alludes to it in the following interesting passage from his Reminiscences — 2 “ Captain William Baillie, who knew all the distinguished artists, for more than half a century, as I have heard him say, used to pass his mornings for a considerable time in going from one apartment to another over the Piazza, to the respective artists who resided there. It appears from the memoranda before me, that in the year 1764 no less than ten painters occupied houses or apartments on this side of Co vent Garden. “ It was here that Zoffany painted Foote in the character of Major Sturgeon in the Mayor of Garrat : and Moody in the character of Foigard. He also took his first studies from Garrick, for the drunken scene in the Provoked Wife here : and my father accompanied him thither from his house in Southampton Street, adjacent, and Fosbrook 1 Where, in later years, Robins, the celebrated auctioneer, dwelt. 2 Reminiscences of Henry Angelo, I. 112. Coll, of the Duke of Atholl FAMILY GROUP REPRESENTING JOHN, THIRD DUKE, WITH HIS WIFE AND SEVEN ELDER CHILDREN ON THE BANKS OF THE TAY AT DUNKELD Painted for Blair Castle in 1767 Coll, of the l),,ke of Atholl 'llll ORIGINAL KIT LIFT FROM ZOFFANY I'OR II 1 E PICTURE HE PAINTED FOR HIE DUKE OF" \TIIOLL EARLY DAYS i5 brought the dress from the theatre, for Garrick to put on, to be painted in. This picture was not finished, however, until Zoffany had removed to Lincoln’s Inn Fields.” It would be interesting to identify the persons depicted in another important group for which Zoffany was responsible at this time. Walpole evidently did not know them, as he merely describes the work thus : “ A boy flying a kite, the father sitting, and a younger boy standing by him and looking at the other.” Zoffany called it only “ A Family,” and sent it to the Society of Artists in 1764, and at their Exhibition it was hung and will be found in the catalogue under item 141. It now belongs to the Hon. Mrs. Goldman, who lives in Zoffany’s own neighbourhood, Chiswick, and it came to her by bequest from a Mr. Friedlander. It is an exceedingly good picture, as delightful as any group Zoffany ever painted, but it is annoying that we are not able to find out who are the persons there represented. Unfortunately we have not been able to illustrate this fine work in these pages. His other pictures belonging to this period were a portrait of the actor Moody, in the character of Foigard, which at one time belonged to Lord Charlemont, and then to Sir Henry Irving, who regarded it as a very precious work ; three anonymous portraits 1 and a picture described in the catalogue as that of “ A Lady playing on the Glasses.” In 1765 the artist moved into Lincoln’s Inn Fields, as the quotation from Angelo’s Reminiscences has already informed us. His residence was in what was then known as Portugal Row, and later on as Portugal Street — so-called from the presence in it of the home of the Portuguese Ambassador — and Zoffany, who, like Nollekens, was (at least in his early life) a devout Catholic, is said to have moved there in order to save shoe-leather in attending the Sardinian Chapel, his usual place of worship, as it was far nearer to his new residence than when he was in Co vent Garden. Here he remained for nearly five years, busily engaged the whole time, and produced some admirable pictures. Upon one of the most important of them he was engaged for a con- siderable period. It was a group representing John, third Duke of Atholl, with his wife and seven elder children, and hangs now at Blair Atholl, a large painting (63 x 36) having been executed specially to fit over the mantelpiece of the room. 1 Perhaps one of them represented Lord Charlemont, for on October 29, 1764, he drew a bill on Arnold Nesbitt & Co., in the favour of Zoffany for £20 for work “ done for him.” i6 JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. Zoffany began it in July 1765, as the original entries from the Duke’s account-book, still in existence, set forth. They read thus — 1765. June. Mr. Zophany in part payment for a family picture ...... £100 1767. Feb. To Mr. Zoffany, Painter, for a family pic- ture of nine figures at 20 guineys each, but £100 being paid formerly, I only pay him now £89 .... 89 £189 and Zoffany’s receipt — which, by the late Duke of Atholl’s permission, we reproduce in these pages — runs thus — London. 16th Jan, 1767. Received from the Duke of Atholl 1 Eighty-Nine Pounds which with One Hundred Pounds formerly Receivd Makes in All One Hundred and Eighty Guineys being in full for, a Family Picture of nine Figures at twenty Guineys Each. Sgd. Johan Zoffany. The picture was not exhibited till 1769, and then at the rooms of the Society of Artists, and it will be found in the catalogue under 215. It possesses a special feature of interest, for, referring to our previous allusion to joint work on the part of various artists, we believe the background for this painting, which certainly represents the Tay and the Hill of Craigvenian, with the Atholl cairn on it, to be the work of Charles Stewart (brother to Anthony Stewart (1773-1846) the miniature painter), who was on Tayside and painted for the Duke various land- scapes which now form five panels in the dining-room, and are signed and dated 1766, 1767, 1768, 1777 and 1778. It would appear as though the canvas, having been prepared for the exact place in the room, Stewart first painted upon it the landscape, the view of the River Tay at Dunkeld; and then the canvas was brought up to town by coach so that Zoffany could carry out his work from sittings when the family were in town. It does not seem at all likely that Zoffany painted the picture in Scot- land. It probably was worked upon from time to time, as various mem- bers of the family came to London, for the Duke of Atholl was at that time doing up and refurnishing Blair Atholl and brought nearly everything 1 The same Duke paid Zoffany £ 8 , in 1772, for a picture of the Royal family, but this we have been unable to trace. It does not appear to be at Blair Atholl. SCENE FROM “ LOVE IN A VILLAGE ” REPRESENTING EDWARD SHUTER, JOHN BEARD AND DUNSTALL. From the engraving. The original painting belongs to the Earl of Yarborough EARLY DAYS i7 for that purpose from London, as so much of the furniture and pictures from the Castle had been looted or sold during the ’45. This procedure of slow completion was not an unusual circumstance with Zoffany, because many of his groups represented entire families, and it was seldom possible for them all to sit together, or, indeed, for more than one at a time to be in the studio. Such groups, in conse- quence, were not executed in a hurry. In one notable case, as we shall see in the next chapter, these delays were responsible for a serious state of affairs. In what way Zoffany first attracted the attention of George III is not known. It is said to have been due to the intervention of Lord Barring- ton, or to Lord Bute. Zoffany is known to have painted the portrait of the former nobleman (the second Lord), and the family tradition is that Lord Barrington brought Lord Bute, whose children Zoffany painted, and Lord Bute then interested the King in the painter. Certainly during Zoffany’s residence in Portugal Row he received his first Royal commission, which was, as we shall see, to be followed by others. The work was executed in 1765, and represented “ Their Royal Highnesses, the Prince of Wales and Prince Frederick as cupids,” and it was exhibited at the Free Society’s Exhibition in 1766, Zoffany’s only exhibit in the gallery of that Society. It does not appear to be now in the Royal collection, and we have at present been unable to find it. The catalogue states that it was painted “ on copper.” Of the other pictures which belong to this period six were theatrical groups. “ Mr. Garrick, as Lord Chalkstone ” (198), now to be seen in the Garrick Club; “ The Miser, in the same Entertainment ” (199), a picture we have not been successful in finding. “ A scene in Love in a Village ” (194), which now belongs to Mr. Acton Garle, and was bought by his grandfather ( circa 1830) for a thousand pounds, and another scene from the same play (138), which is, we believe, the one now in the possession of the Earl of Yarborough. In these groups we have representations of that clever comedian, Edward Shuter (1728-1776), who often acted under Garrick and distin- guished himself in minor comic parts. Of him Angelo has a good deal to say in his Reminiscences , and he refers to this actual picture also. “ ‘ Shuter,’ says he, ‘ was so genuine a humourist, that he was noticed by many persons of the highest rank. Some of these were permitted behind the scenes at the theatre, by a special privilege of c i8 JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. the management ; though, until a certain period of the last century, this was pretty general; so much so, indeed, that these amateur visitors were occasionally sufficiently numerous to impede the actors in their lawful occupation. “ ‘Two illustrious personages, members of the Royal family, one evening, being behind the scenes at Covent Garden Theatre, dis- posed for a little humour, went to have a chat with Shuter in his dressing-room. He, having an arduous part to perform, was anxious to be left alone, for in their gay mood they were following him about. He had to dress for two characters; so having a ready wit, and knowing their princely condescension, he said to one, “ By Jupiter, the prompter has got my book, I must fetch it; will you be so obliging as to hold my skull-cap to the fire, your Royal Highness ? ” And to the other prince, “ Perhaps you will condescend to air my breeches ? ” Yielding to his humour, they good-naturedly did as they were required. Away he flew, shut the door, and, relating in the green-room what he had done, several of the performers and others following upstairs they peeped through the keyhole, and to their astonishment beheld the Royal brothers thus employed. “ ‘ I have heard Zoffany say that this lively actor, however, was a very dull fellow off the stage, unless half tipsy, but in that state he was the most amusing of all the dramatic fraternity. Zoffany’s por- trait of him in the character of “ Justice Woodcock ” was pronounced an incomparable likeness; indeed my own recollection of him is sufficiently strong to vouch for this; for, having repeatedly seen him in that character, in the favourite piece of Love in a Village , though I was then but a boy, a recent view of the print brought this old favourite, to my imagination, at once to life again.’ ” Mr. Garrick’s drunken scene in the Provoked Wife (167) is another of Zoffany’s theatrical groups painted at this time. It passed to George Garrick, and still belongs to one of his descendants ; and the last of the six is a scene in The Devil Upon Two Sticks (214), now in the gallery of the Earl of Carlisle. Of these, four were engraved, a compliment proving how popular Zoffany’s theatrical pictures had already become. All of them were seen at the Exhibition of the Society of Artists, and they will be found recorded in our List of Exhibited Works in the Appendix. Walpole praised two of them, and in the scene from The Devil Upon Two Sticks noted from memory the words of the conversation in which the actors are engaged, upon the margin of his catalogue. Coll, of Sir E. C. Nugent , Bart. GROUP OF PERSONS IN A ROOM FROM WHICH CAN BE SEEN THE HORSE GUARDS PARADE 1 hey include Robert, Viscount Clare, his son and daughter, afterwards Mr rchioness of Buckingham and Ccuntess Nugent ; and Miss Mary Nugent usually known in the family as Aunt Peggy Coll, of Col. Bradney, C.B. PORTRAIT GROUP REPRESENTING SIR JOHN HOPKINS, GREAT-GRANDFATHER OF THE OWNER, HIS WIFE, TWO SONS AND THREE DAUGHTERS Coll of Major Savill GROUP OF FIVE FIGURES I N I I I l.l I> “THE: MINUF'I Coll . of I Mr (l Glcnconncr PORTRAIT OF MISS STFVENS EARLY DAYS i9 In addition to all these there were exhibited some six portraits, which, being anonymous, it is not possible to identify. One of them, repre- senting a child with a dog, has also, says Walpole, “ a cradle,” but whether the child is in it or not he does not state. Finally, in addition to the Atholl group already mentioned, Zoffany exhibited at the Society of Artists three other groups of figures. Of one we have no information whatever. It is simply called “ A Family,” and appears as item 195 in the Exhibition of 1767. Another, however, in the 1765 Exhibition (168) Walpole enables us to identify. He notes against it the significant words “ Dr. Nugent’s,” and we find the original picture still at West Harting Hall in the possession of Dr. Nugent’s descendant, Sir E. C. Nugent. It was painted in London, perhaps in the family town-house and from the room in which the scene is set the Horse Guards Parade may be viewed. Lord Clare (afterwards Earl Nugent) is the principal figure, and with him are his son and daughter with his half-sister, usually known in the family as Aunt Peggy. It is a brilliant conception well carried out in the neat, careful, painstaking manner so characteristic of Zoffany’s work. The third group was probably that now belonging to Colonel Bradney, and represents Sir John Hopkins with his wife, two sons and three daughters. Here, again, the room in which the group is represented is a typical London drawing-room of the period, well-lit from a large window, having the tea equipage in full view and a harpsichord near at hand. On it one of the ladies is performing, while another assists her in turning over the music. It would be interesting to know whose were the portraits that Zoffany painted in Portugal Row, but about them, alas ! we can only surmise. Perchance one was a clever portrait of Miss Fenton (now belonging to Sir Wilmot Fawkes) and which seems to belong to this period, and very probably others were those of Charles Banister, Miss Stevens, Thomas Doggett and Thomas Jackson, but this is all mere surmise, as we have no certain evidence that will enable us to identify any of the anony- mous portraits he painted while residing in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. One other painting does, however, deserve attention, that entitled “ The Porter and the Hare.” It is said that Zoffany from his window witnessed the scene, and at once committed it to canvas. A porter is carrying a hare as a gift to some person and is uncertain of the position of the house. A boy is reading the direction on the label, another near by is looking up and is busily eating bread-and-butter. It is just an episode but of a pleasing nature, and it met with Walpole’s approval when he saw it in the Exhibition of 20 JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. 1769 (213), and noted down his comments upon it on his catalogue. With the general public also, it gained instant approval, and the excellent mezzotint which Earlom made of it and published in 1774 sold exceedingly well. It even seems possible that Zoffany painted a replica of the picture for some client, for there are two versions of it, both of which appear to be the work of the artist himself. The better of the two seems to be the one in New York, which originally belonged to the Ehrich Gallery and which, for a wonder, has a signature upon it, 1 but there is another version in the possession of Colonel Baskerville which exactly resembles the mezzotint, and has also good claims to be considered the original work from which it was taken. Possibly the very reason why there is a name on the New York version, to wit “ Mr. Zoffany pictor,” an unusual form for a signature to take, is the fact that there are two versions and that one owner got Zoffany to put his name to his or himself added the signature. It certainly appears to be contemporary with the picture and a genuine part of it. The important group from Swaylands representing the Drummond family must have been painted somewhere about this time, as Andrew Drummond, the old man in the picture, died in 1769, at the age of eighty- one, and he was clearly a very old man when he sat for this portrait. It is a very happy composition, one of Zoffany’s best out-of-doors conver- sation pieces, and as it gives the portraits of three generations of the Drummonds, is of peculiar interest. It was painted at Stanmore, and in the extreme distance in the centre of the picture the town of Harrow-on- the-Hill is lightly indicated. The picture is fully described in the Appendix. To the same period belongs the large oval portrait of Mr. Drummond, now in the same house. In Mr. Drummond’s hand can be seen a gold-topped crutch-handle walking-stick, used by its owner in his famous walk from Glasgow to London when he came up to found the agency which grew with great rapidity into the famous Bank which now belongs to his descendant. This actual walking-stick, carefully preserved as a valued treasure, can be seen in a glass-case in the Bank parlour. The similar portrait at Cadland and the one representing the group of Mendicants also belonging to Mr. Maldwin Drummond, and another 1 Zoffany seldom signed his pictures. We have only seen one work, the portrait of Maddison, belonging to Mr. John Lane in which we are convinced the signature and date are genuine. In two other cases we are sure that the signature has been painted on at a later date, and on several works reputed to be signed we have failed to discover the signature at all. Of several of his works, however, there exist undeniable proofs of authenticity, such as entries in diaries, allusions in letters, or even receipted bills. Coll, of Messrs. Ehrich Brothers Ehrich Gallery photo THE PORTER AND THE HARE This picture is the subject of an engraving PORTRAIT GROUP OF THE DRUMMOND FAMILY EARLY DAYS 21 group of mendicants somewhat similar belonging to Mrs. Jervis were all probably painted in the very same year. Another notable person whose portrait, however, we have not yet succeeded in tracing, was painted by Zoffany at this period. This was Francis Grose the antiquary (1731-1791), a man of unusual corpulence whose portrait was known as that of “ Zoffany’s fat man.” Angelo relates the story of the sketch from which the portrait grew, and it is so well told and of such an amusing character, that it is well worth repetition in extenso. It is not certain whether the sketch to which Angelo alludes did not grow up into a double portrait; in fact, there is a family tradition that it did, and that both the two men, with whom Zoffany was very intimate, figure in one of his groups side by side. It would, in the circumstances, be of interest if this picture could be found. Angelo’s story is given in these words — “ The bare mention of Captain Grose brings many an instance of his facetice to mind. I never remember a more amusing day than that which, of all others, happened to be one of those entitled a Fast , or annual day of humiliation by Act of Parliament, for the manifold sins of the people, pending the years of war : a custom, by the way, which, during the days of peace (a period for general thanks- giving) is left alone, which neglect, perhaps, gave occasion to the old distich — “ * In time of war, and not before, God and the soldier we adore ; When peace is come, and war is not, Soldiers may starve — God is forgot.’ “ However this may be, the elder Angelo at Acton, being a cele- brated Cake-house for all his numerous and very multifarious friends and acquaintances, on this particular Fast - day walked hither two worthies, who, for bulk, might have been weighed against any two aldermen in our renowned old metropolitan city. These were Captain Grose and Alexander Gresse : the first the celebrated anti- quary, the latter an artist of celebrity in his day, teacher of drawing to her late Majesty and the Princesses, and a great favourite of his late Majesty King George the Third. 1 “ It is a curious fact, that these two corpulent gentlemen were great walkers, and, although they did not get over the ground very 1 On account of his corpulency John A. Gresse was known amongst his comrades as “ Jack Grease.” 22 JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. rapidly, yet, by ‘ taking time by the forelock,’ that is, by rising early, they contrived to be in time to many a good dinner, within a circuit of eight or even ten miles of town. “ Sebastian Bach, and his friend Abel, who had been invited, were already there, when my father, looking out from the window, beheld these ponderous pedestrians approaching the house. Bach and Abel, being called to the window, on viewing them, laughed so lustily, that my father, catching their fit of risibility, could not go down to receive them, as he was accustomed to do; for Bach ex- claimed, patting Abel’s corporation, which was very protuberant, ‘ Mine Gote, mine teer friend Angelo, vot, is two more such pellies as this gome down to keep the fast ? Diable ! If we feast to-day, we must fast to-morrow, and so tromper the act of barliament.’ . . . “ Gresse and Grose at length arrived : and after each taking a glass of liqueur before dinner was announced, we walked into the grounds, where Calze, an Italian painter, who had practised here, had painted a large piece on a blank wall, at least eighteen feet high, being the gable of our coach-house, the subject of a Roman structure with an arch, through which he has represented a wide gravelled path, between a long vista of trees. This having become dingy, Zoffany was restoring it, and having seen our two fat friends through the hedge, as they turned the road to my father’s front gate, he filled his painting brushes, and from this slight glance rubbed their por- traits in with vast rapidity, and with marvellous resemblance. My father and others, who accompanied them down the avenue that faced this artificial ruin, were actuallv startled, thinking these figures the wraiths of Gresse and Grose. On nearing them, however, they appeared mere daubs. This frolic of Zoffany’s caused the fat, facetious Grose, great merriment, at the expense of Gresse, who could not, or would not, see the joke. Though a good-natured and friendly-hearted man, Gresse was very irritable, and could not patiently endure the least observations upon the stupendosity of his figure. This, indeed, is verified in a story of his late Majesty, and the too-sensitive painter, which happened whilst my father was in attendance upon the Royal family. “ Gresse, on his first introduction as a teacher at the Royal palaces, had been told by Muller, page to the then young Prince Edward, that the etiquette was, if by accident he met the King or any member of the Royal family within the palace, to stand respectfully still — let them pass, and take no notice, unless those great personages con- descended to notice him. “ It happened that during his many professional visits at Bucking- EARLY DAYS 23 ham House, at Kew, and at Windsor, during the first two years’ attendance, he had never by any chance met the King. “ One day, however, whilst waiting to attend the Queen, and amusing himself in looking at the painted ceiling in the great audience chamber, a door suddenly opened, and by a side glance he perceived himself in the Royal presence. It was no less a personage than His Majesty, King George the Third, who entered alone. “ Struck, no doubt, with the extraordinary bulk and general contour of the figure of the artist, for he stood with his hands behind him, grasping his cocked hat, and his legs straddled wide, with his head thrown back, the King advanced to the middle of the room, and eyed him with apparent surprise. Gresse, remembering the point of etiquette, dropped his head to its natural position and stood stock-still. “ After his Majesty had taken this survey, he walked round, whilst Gresse, wishing a trap-door to open under his feet, remained, nothing short of a waxed figure, beneath a tropical sun. At length the King, unconscious, we may reasonably suppose, of the misery of the sen- sitive artist, walked to some distance, and, turning round, took a view of him right in front. Gresse, determined to show the King that he really was not a statue, regardless of further etiquette, made to the sovereign a most profound bow, which the King, understanding, as it is supposed, he immediately retired. “ To Calze, and his painting of the Roman ruin also, a tale is attached, which may not be entirely unworthy of relating. . , . He was capricious and litigious, though, by fits, as generous as the most liberal of his compeers. Like most Italians, however, being no economist, he got into pecuniary difficulties, and to get out of them again would sometimes fix the consequences upon an employer, or even a friend. “ Zoffany, who ever had his wits about him, had known Signor Calze well, and advised my father, before he left England, to beware of his tricks : saying, ‘ Mine friend Angelo, I would advise you to obtain in writing, that this fine temple, at the bottom of the garden — this ruin — is not to be rebuilt up at your expense; for ’ (putting his finger on his nose) ‘ if the Signor should happen to want some monies, though this is painted con amove , it may chance to end al contrario : Gourde lo chi e— take care he not send a you se long bill.’ “ My father smiled at the precaution, and was incredulous, saying — • ‘ No — no — my dear Mister Zoffany — he can never treat me so.’ “ My mother, however, who had more penetration, by a little playful management, procured a written testimony from him, of the work being done as a tribute in kind.” CHAPTER II ZOFFANY AS A ROYAL ACADEMICIAN We have already alluded to the fact that Zoffany’s skill in portraiture was brought under the notice of the King, who honoured the artist with his approval, and, when the Royal Academy was founded, nominated him as one of its original members. Not only did His Majesty do this, but his interest in the painter went further, for he sat himself for a portrait, commissioned one of the Royal family, another of the Queen and yet other works to which we refer presently. George III also purchased from time to time several examples of Zoffany’s work, showing altogether an unusual interest in the artist. The first picture of the Royal family exhibited by Zoffany at the Royal Academy (21 1), is that of the King, the Queen and six of their children. It still hangs at Windsor Castle. Walpole commented upon it in sneering fashion. “ In Vandyke dresses,” says he, “ ridiculous — a print of it,” 1 and to the one of the King exhibited in the following year (230) he is no more complimentary. “ Very like,” says he, “ but most disagreeable and unmeaning figure.” In fact Walpole, while commenting on most of the pictures sent in by Zoffany to the Exhibitions of the Royal Academy and supplying us with many of the missing names, does not seem to have held a very favourable opinion of the artist, as a portrait painter , reserving his praise, and that is generally full and definite, for the theatrical compositions in which he considered Zoffany excelled. We must not, however, dismiss the Royal group in Walpole’s airy fashion, as the painting, although weak in composition and wholly un- satisfactory in its grouping, has a special interest of its own. It was engraved in mezzotint by Earlom, and then from the figure of the King and from those of the Queen and the children there were modelled Derby- Chelsea groups in porcelain biscuit. These are now rare. Of the one of the King there appears to have been two models, differing slightly 1 The Windsor Castle one was engraved by Earlom. 24 GEORGE III AND QUEEN CHARLOTTE DERBY PORCELAIN STATUETTES COPIED FROM THE PAINTING BY ZOFFANY IN THE COLLECTION OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING By permission from Blacker’s “ Old English China ’ Coll, nj II.M . The Kiuf* Lord ClKWibftlflin's Di'ptirlmrnt phoio HIS MAJESTY KING GEORGE III, WITH QUEEN CHAKI-O'J'I E AND III I ROYAL EAM11.Y Exhibited at Royal Academy in 1770 and engraved ZOFFANY AS A ROYAL ACADEMICIAN 25 one from the other. George III is represented standing by a pedestal, upon which he rests his left arm, his right hand resting on his hip. The head is turned towards the right. On the pedestal, in one of the models, is the crown with the sceptre on a cushion. In the other model there is a different crown with the orb, and there are other minor distinctions between the two. One example is in the British Museum, and is illus- trated in R. L. Hobson’s Catalogue of the Old English Porcelain (Plate XX). The British Museum example, according to Mr. Hobson’s catalogue, is mentioned in a catalogue of the principal additions made to the stock of the Bedford Street warehouse in 1773 or 1774, thus : “ Their present Majesties, the King and Queen and Royal family, in three grouped pieces in biscuit, the centrepiece represents the King in a Vandyck dress ” (see p. 61). In the example in the British Museum the figure is set upon a pillar and base, “ glazed and coloured lapis lazuli blue, veined in gold.” The mark is a combined anchor and D in gold. Lord Lincolnshire has in his possession the two groups belonging to the set of which the British Museum possesses the figure of George III. 1 It is believed that this particular figure was sold away from the other to the Museum, by one of his ancestors. The two groups 2 which he still possesses are, first, one of Queen Charlotte with the two young Princesses, and second, one of the four younger Princes, one of whom is playing with a dog, another should be holding a cockatoo, and the two elder stand at the back. Both these groups are extremely fine in their execution, and the treatment of the lace collars and draperies is of unusual delicacy. The cockatoo which Prince William should be holding in his hand is, however, missing in Lord Lincolnshire’s group. Mr. Amor, of King Street, St. James’s, also possesses two of the groups, the one representing Queen Charlotte and the Princesses, and the figure of George III. From these two our illustration is taken. The third group, of the four children, is of extreme rarity. We have only been able to hear of Lord Lincoln- shire’s example, but we have been told that there is in a private collection yet another, and that in it the cockatoo, which is missing from Lord Lincolnshire’s group, can be seen. It will be noticed on comparing our illustration with the one taken by the King’s permission from the original painting, that the workers in porcelain have not followed the painting in all its details, but while aiming at a general resemblance have varied the composition, probably for technical reasons, at their own will. Thus the vase at the back of the group of the Queen does not appear in Zoffany’s picture, nor does the 1 An example of the figure of the King was sold at Christies, in 1875, for £47. 2 Lord Lincolnshire’s groups were exhibited at the Bethnal Green Museum in 1875. 26 JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. ornamental pedestal on which the King rests his arm. Again, the crown, orb and cushion are quite differently placed in the painting, and the draperies, especially those of Princess Charlotte, fall in different fashion. On the whole, however, the arrangement made by Zoffany has been followed, and the existence of the groups is proof of the admiration with which the original painting was greeted by the general public. 1 Zoffany did, however, create a sensation at the first Exhibition of the Academy by his picture of “ Abel Drugger ” (212). He called it “ The last scene of the 2nd Act in the Alchymist,” and Walpole’s long and interesting note upon it reads thus — “ This most excellent picture of Burton, J. Palmer and Garrick f as Abel Drugger is one of the best pictures ever done by this Genius. Sir Joshua Reynolds gave him £100 for it. Ld. Carlisle offered the latter 20 guineas more for it. Sir Joshua said he should have it for the £100 if his Lordship would give the ^20 to Zoffani which he did.” The story, so alluded to by Walpole, and which does great honour to Reynolds, is told also by Mary Moser, 2 and again in somewhat different fashion by an anonymous contemporary writer who gives, moreover, a larger sum (50 guineas) as the premium paid. This is borne out by the tradition at Castle Howard which is to the effect that one hundred and fifty guineas was paid for the painting. The other narrative reads thus 3 — “ The late Earl of Carlisle, at this period, conversing with Sir Joshua, again expressed a wish that he had been the possessor of this said picture of Garrick in the character of ‘ Abel Drugger.’ He had often endeavoured to persuade his friend, Sir Joshua, to part with it. ‘ Well, my Lord,’ said he, ‘ what premium will you pay upon my purchase ? ’ ‘ Any sum you will name,’ replied the Earl. ‘ Then 1 See Haslam’s work on the Old Derby Porcelain Factory, 1876, p. 248 ; and Blacker’ s work on Old English China. 2 Mary Moser, R.A., so Smith tells us, wrote to Fuseli concerning the Royal Academy Exhibitions, and thus refers to the picture : “ I suppose there has been a million of letters sent to Italy with an account of our Exhibition, so it will be only telling you what you know already to say that Reynolds was like himself in pictures which you have seen ; Gainsborough beyond himself in a portrait of a gentleman in a Vandyke habit, and Zoffany superior to everybody in a portrait of Garrick in the character of Abel Drugger with two other figures, Subtile and Fall. Sir Joshua agreed to give an hundred guineas for the picture; Lord Carlisle half-an-hour after offered Reynolds twenty to part with it, which the Knight generously refused; resigned his intended purchase to the Lord and the emolument to his brother artist. (He is a gentleman !) ” 3 Literary Gazette, July 8, 1826. A SCENE FROM “THE ALCHYMIST ” GARRICK AS ABEL DRUGGER, BURTON AND PALMER AS SUBTILE AND FACE. (Ad 2 , SCCHS 6) From the engraving. The original painting belongs to the Earl of Carlisle Coll, oj Lady Saycr Campbell Cray photo PORTRAIT OF JAMFS SAYER, AGED 13, THE SON OF ROBERT SAYER, THE PRINT DEALER Engraved in mezzotint by R. Houston and published by Robert Saycr the boy’s father in 1772 ZOFFANY AS A ROYAL ACADEMICIAN 27 it is yours, my Lord, if you will pay me one hundred guineas and add fifty as a gratuity to Mr. Zoffany.’ His lordship consented, and so, to the credit as well as satisfaction of all parties, it was settled. The picture is now in the gallery at his lordship’s late seat at Castle Howard. “ Sir Joshua 1 not infrequently added to the means of contemporary artists of merit, by this delicate method of transferring what he himself had purchased in the first instance as a compliment to the talent which he thus brought into notice. Indeed, it could not fail to serve a rising artist to receive so marked a compliment as to have one of his works placed in the private collection of the most illustrious living painter in the world; one, too, whose opinion almost gave universal law to the taste of his age.” The painting is certainly one of the best that Zoffany ever produced and has always been a popular one. It has often been exhibited, was twice at the British Institution (1814 and 1840), twice at Whitechapel (1906 and 1910), once at the Grafton Gallery (1897), and once at the New Gallery (1891). Its dimensions are 41 2 ; 39, and in it Burton and Palmer are playing the parts of Subtile and Fall. Lord Carlisle greatly admired Zoffany’s work and was the purchaser of two more of his pictures, one representing Foote as Major Sturgeon in the Mayor of Garrett , and the other depicting Foote and Weston in The Devil Upon Two Sticks (Act II, Scene ii.). Both of these also have frequently been exhibited, and the latter, as well as the Abel Drugger group, were engraved. The only other picture Zoffany sent in that first year of the Academy was a small whole-length portrait of a young gentleman. It is suggested that either this picture, or one exhibited in the following year under an almost identical description, is the portrait of James Sayer at the age of thirteen, represented fishing, which now belongs to Lady Sayer, inasmuch as the portrait in question was engraved by Houston in mezzotint and published by Robert Sayer, the boy’s father, in 1772. It was probably, therefore, exhibited in 1770 or in 1771. One of the two portraits is almost certainly that representing Ralph Izard, as a boy, seated under a tree, holding an open book and with a dog at his feet, because that work is dated 1771, and, moreover, is stated to have Zoffany’s signature upon it, both very rare occurrences in works by this painter (see p. 20). 1 Sir Joshua commissioned Mr. Garrard, then a young and promising artist, to paint a picture of a brewery, in compliment to the great talent exhibited by him in a similar painting of the brewery of Messrs. Calvert. 28 JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. Izard eventually became a notable man in the United States, and was one of the delegation from South Carolina to the first Congress. The portrait still belongs to his descendants and is now in the posses- sion of Mr. Louis Maingault of Charleston, South Carolina, the great grandson of the boy represented in the painting. Two of the pictures exhibited in 1771 it is possible still to trace. One is that of the King, to which we have already alluded, Walpole’s “ disagreeable and unmeaning figure,” and represents George III in scarlet uniform with a white waistcoat and wearing the ribbon and star of the Garter. The other, called “ A Beggar’s Family ” (232), belongs to Mr. Maldwin Drummond, and is a spirited representation of a group of mendicants set in a landscape. Then, in 1772, we come upon one of Zoffany’s most notable works, and again he was honoured by a lengthy comment from Walpole. The picture (290) was styled “ The Portraits of the Academicians of the Royal Academy,” and it was a high compliment to Zoffany that he should have been selected to paint this, the first group in which the members of the newly-founded society were represented. It was at once bought by George III, and is now in the Royal collection at Buckingham Palace. Walpole said of it — “ This excellent picture was done by candle light; he made no design for it, but clapped in the artists as they came to him, and yet all the attitudes are easy and natural, most of the likenesses strong. There is a print from it.” Anthony Pasquin (John Williams) in his Authentic History , is not so complimentary, but his efforts to be sardonic in his criticism 1 are not quite so successful when he refers to this picture as when, later on, he alluded to other works by Zoffany. Of this he says — “ His combined portraits of the Royal Academicians is a picture so similar to all his best efforts, that it may be offered as an instance of his manner and ability. The characters are well preserved, but the outline is too coarse, and the colouring wants harmony ; I shall consolidate any farther critique in this declaration, that I believe he cannot paint with common estimation, in the absence of a model.” On the other hand, the Literary Gazette of July 8, 1826, commenting on the picture when it was exhibited at the British Institution, gives us 1 Authentic History of . . . the Royal Academicians, by Anthony Pasquin. Cell, of His Majesty the King THE LIFE SCHOOL IN THE ROYAL ACADEMY Lord Chamberlain's Department photo .r FINISHED AND ENGRAVED KEY TO THE PAINTING OF THE LIFE SCHOOL IN THE ROYAL ACADEMY ZOFFANY AS A ROYAL ACADEMICIAN 29 several pieces of interesting information concerning the work and some good-natured criticism. It thus speaks of the painting, and we give the extract in extenso with its own footnotes— “ It was well observed by Jeremiah Meyers 1 that ‘ some men become ancients even in their own age.’ Meyers said many good things, and this was said upon the picture of the Royal Academicians, now chronicled as part and parcel of that Royal collection, which, by the liberality of our King, is at present exhibiting as the chief lion of this great sight-seeing epoch. Little did Frank Hayman 2 think, who rarely thought for to-morrow, when he sat to his friend, Johan Zoffany 3 that he should be so soon handed down to fame, in such company too, as one of the old English masters. His portrait, which is a very strong resemblance, was not entirely finished from the life ; for Master Frank was of too volatile a temper to afford even a brother Academician a fair number of sittings. “ Zoffany, however, managed to stamp the canvas with this, his faithful portrait, partly, we may suppose, from the strength of his memory. There is a head of Hayman, by Sir Joshua Reynolds, which was copied by his pupil, Mr. Taylor, on whose authority we venture to vouch for the fidelity of Frank’s face and figure in the picture of the R.A.’s. “ It is said, and on good authority we believe, that Zoffany, at the period of painting this artistic group, having a pique against Richard Wilson, the landscape-painter, erst his bottle-companion, determined to let off a graphic squib at his new propensity, that of preferring a pipe and a pot to the drawing of a cork. In the sequence, he introduced on the chimney-piece immediately over Wilson’s head 4 a quart tankard of stout, with its foaming top, and two crossed tobacco-pipes, carefully covering the sottish symbols with gold- beater’s skin, on which he painted a plaster case of a Gorgon’s head. It was so sent for public exhibition, under the suspicion of Zoffany’s 1 Jeremiah Meyers, a native of Tubingen, miniature painter to the Queen of England, and one of the earliest Royal Academicians. His portrait is in this picture. 2 Francis Hayman is seated near him, whose portrait describes to the life his bold, athletic person. In this we behold the renowned painter who had the pugilistic set-to with the great Marquis of Granby, whose magnificent portrait by Reynolds is on the opposite side of the gallery. 3 Zoffany has introduced his own portrait in the group. He is seated in the front, with his palette and pencils. 4 Wilson is represented at the back of the group. His nose herein is of moderate dimensions, not having attained to that remarkable prominence subsequently repre- sented in the sketch by Sir George B . . . t [Beaumont], and other no less faithful resemblances, alike done con amove . 3 ° JOHN ZOFFANY, R.A. intending to remove the skin secretly, and thus expose the falling of his former convive. But whether his splenetic humour subsided, or he more prudently thought the disclosure of the trick would offend the gravity of the magisterial committee of the R.A.’s, he kept his secret till the exhibition closed ; and after bantering Wilson, through the whisperings of a select few, to whom he showed this sport of his pencil, he painted out the Gorgon, the pipes and the 'pot, and com- pleted the composition as it now appears. “ The Royal Academy of Painters, Architects and Sculptors, like the theatres, under whose roofs have flourished the actors, singers and others, will serve from age to age as a memento mori ; for new genera- tions of painters and dramatic performers, rapidly succeeding those whom we, by way of contradistinction, call old, in the course of a very few years, in the ‘ Mind’s eye,’ really convert them into ancients. Thus the very picture before view, which records the portraits of the Royal Academicians of the last reign, all, with their honoured founder, gone to the tomb, presents to the mind a band of worthies already endeared to their posterity by the tender associations of the past, wrapping their memory with that sacred mantle which imagination draws between the living and the illustrious dead. “It is doubtless from this general respect for men of genius in the arts, who have done honour to their age, that the next age delights to preserve their memory, by dwelling on all the minor operations of their ingenious career; hence every trait of their habits, private as well as professional, is sought with avidity, related with pleasure, and listened to with delight. “ It seems that all the members of the Royal Academy sat to Zoffany for the occasion, excepting one, Sir Nathaniel Holland.” 1 In a later issue of the same Gazette, the writer comments still further upon some of those who are represented in the picture. “ ‘ Francis Hayman,’ he says, ‘ who makes so important a figure in his coat, waistcoat and breeches of drab broadcloth and his Sunday wig (to use the words of his favourite pupil, now in his eighty- seventh year, and sitting at my elbow), looking as large as life.’ This Francis Hayman was the ingenious author of those graphic decorations at Vauxhall, the painted walls. “ Frank, another nightingale . . . kept his summer nights in the bowers of Vauxhall, and returned to his dormitory with the uprising of the lark. 1 Nathaniel Dance when an R.A. He assumed the name of Holland when he retired and obtained his title ten years later still. — Author. 22 - f s 'l s 4 % 1 ■s s t s. te •1 ,v $ l' J i | N si c^,