■ -* 
 
 
 • •£ 
 
 
 
 
 •Hr 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 v • . 
 
 M*-. * • • ' * *v* v, 
 
 . V" : >.-4. *: t &. 
 
 • 5 - r .* \ • ; ,• . . ** 
 
 . « * * * . , yr* . r ' 
 
 ' 
 
 • • v • 4 " j . • * ♦ * 
 
 *■• ’ *♦, ; *, •• **• .* 
 
 >* * . • 
 *• * • * 
 
 •. * . v ‘ 
 
 < -• 4t ' . J.'l 1 *'V 
 
 
THE GREAT 
 
 HISTORIC GALLERIES 
 
 OF 
 
 ENGLAND 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 LORD RONALD GOWER, F.S.A., 
 
 TRUSTEE OF THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON, SEARLE, AND RIVINGTON, 
 Crown Buildings, 188, Fleet Street. 
 
 1881. 
 

CONTENTS. 
 
 SUBJECT. 
 
 1. Madonna with the Palm-Tree 
 
 2. Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel . 
 
 3. Caroline, Countess of Carlisle 
 
 4. Christina of Denmark ( frontispiece ) . 
 
 5. The Prodigal Son .... 
 
 6. Innocence 
 
 7. Maria, Infanta of Spain . 
 
 8. The Housemaid 
 
 9. The Halt 
 
 10. The Three Maries .... 
 
 11. Portrait of a Lady . . . . 
 
 12. Richelieu on the R iione . 
 
 1 3. Madonna of the Bridgwater Gallery 
 
 14. A Cavalier 
 
 15. The Musicians 
 
 16. Adoration of the Magi 
 
 17. Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk . 
 
 18. Caroline, Lady Cawdor 
 
 19. The Duchess of Devonshire 
 
 20. A Daughter of Rubens 
 
 21. Mary, Queen of Scots ... 
 
 22. Madonna with the DiadeM' 
 
 23. St. Justa 
 
 24. St. Rufina 
 
 PAINTER. 
 
 IN POSSESSION OF 
 
 Raphael 
 
 . Earl of Ellesmere. 
 
 Van Dyck . 
 
 . Duke of Sutherland , K. G. 
 
 Reynolds 
 
 . Lord Lanerton. 
 
 Holbein 
 
 . Duke of Norfolk. 
 
 Murillo 
 
 . Duke of Sutherland, K.G. 
 
 Greuze 
 
 . Sir Richard Wallace , Bt., K.C.B. 
 
 Gerbier 
 
 . Earl of Denbigh. 
 
 Gainsborough 
 
 . Lord Lanerton. 
 
 Meissonier . 
 
 . Sir Richard Wallace, Bt., K.C.B. 
 
 Annibale Carracci 
 
 . Lord Lanerton. 
 
 Rembrandt . 
 
 . Earl of Ellesmere. 
 
 Delaroche 
 
 . Sir Richard Wallace, Bt., K.C.B. 
 
 Raphael 
 
 . Earl of Ellesmere. 
 
 Hals . 
 
 . Sir Richard Wallace, Bt., K.C.B. 
 
 Mieris 
 
 . Earl of Ellesmere. 
 
 Mabuse 
 
 . Lord Lanerton. 
 
 Holbein 
 
 . Duke of Norfolk. 
 
 Reynolds 
 
 . Lord Lanerton. 
 
 Gainsborough 
 
 Viscountess Clifden. 
 
 Rubens 
 
 . Earl Spencer, K.G. 
 
 School of Janet . 
 
 . Sir Richard Wallace, Bt., K.C.B. 
 
 After Raphael 
 
 . Earl of Ellesmere. 
 
 Murillo 
 
 . Duke of Sutherland, K.G. 
 
 Murillo 
 
 . Duke of Sutherland, K.G. 
 
THE GREAT HISTORIC GALLERIES OF 
 
 ENGLAND. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 HEN in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, in the year 1598, that curious German 
 traveller, Paul Hentzner, visited the royal palaces of Whitehall, Windsor, 
 Hampton Court, and Nonsuch, he left us an account of the principal works 
 of art they contained, by which we find that, except a few portraits of 
 English and foreign Sovereigns and princes and some battle-pieces and allegorical paint- 
 ings, hardly any pictures adorned their walls. Henry VIII., however, had commenced a 
 collection of paintings, which at the time of his death numbered one hundred and fifty. 
 Probably during this king’s reign a few of the nobility, encouraged by the royal example, 
 had also begun to collect works of art ; certainly some sat to Hans Holbein, and their 
 portraits are occasionally met with in a few of the old country-houses ; for instance, the 
 fine half-length of Lord Paget by Holbein, which is still at Beaudesert in Staffordshire, 
 and that of the Duke of Norfolk, now at Windsor Castle. 
 
 Art for its own sake does not seem to have been encouraged in England before 
 the reign of Charles I. This prince, a consummate judge in matters of taste and artistic 
 excellence, following the example of his elder brother, Prince Henry, began when still 
 young to collect pictures, statues, medals, and other artistic treasures. He purchased the 
 splendid gallery of the Duke of Mantua, a gallery which had taken above a century to 
 collect, and which contained some of the finest specimens of the works of the greatest of 
 the Italian masters; for this collection he is said to have paid .£20,000 — a prodigious 
 sum in those days. That most splendid of all Court favourites, George Villiers, Duke of 
 
 B 
 
 4 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Buckingham, also possessed a gallery of paintings of immense value. At the death 
 of Prince Henry, Charles inherited his brother’s pictures, and at the death of Buckingham 
 he bought many from the Duke’s gallery, and thus became possessed, by heritage and 
 purchase, of a magnificent collection. We can form some idea of its worth, when we 
 remember that among its foremost treasures were such works as Mantegna’s series of 
 paintings, known as The Triumph of Julius Ccesar, now at Hampton Court ; the Holy 
 Family by Raphael, known as La Perla , now in the royal collection at Madrid; many 
 paintings by Correggio, foremost among them the one called The Education of Cupid \ 
 now in our National Gallery, and The Entombment , by Titian, one of the glories of the 
 Louvre. But the greatest treasure of the royal collection was the famous series of 
 cartoons by Raphael, purchased for the king by Rubens. Many valuable paintings 
 were given to Charles by courtiers who knew the best way to win the good will of their 
 art-loving monarch : his brother sovereigns Louis XIII. of France and Philip IV. of 
 Spain also swelled the Royal Gallery of England by similar donations ; among the presents 
 of the latter was Titian’s famous Venus del Pardo, now in the Louvre. And Rubens pre- 
 sented to the king the famous allegorical picture of Peace and War, which he painted when 
 he was resident in England as ambassador. 
 
 A glance atVanderdoorPs catalogue of the pictures with which Charles filled the galleries 
 and chambers of his palaces, shows that this collection was the finest that any monarch had 
 ever brought together : Whitehall, Windsor Castle, St. James’s Palace, and Hampton 
 Court were literally filled with art treasures. The numbers were prodigious — i ,387 paint- 
 ings, besides 399 works of sculpture, and a countless gathering of gems, jewels, carvings, 
 miniatures, tapestries, and valuables of all kinds. No wonder that under such a monarch, 
 and surrounded by such a collection, Van Dyck chose to live at the Court of the King 
 of England. 
 
 It is of course not an easy task to identify any but the most remarkable of the paint- 
 ings which Charles I. possessed, for after his death they were scattered over Europe. The 
 sale of the Royal Collection took place in 1652 and the following year. Agents from 
 the Courts of France, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands eagerly bid for the finest 
 works. Some idea of the number that Spain alone took from our shores may be gained 
 by the fact that on the road between Corunna and Madrid sixteen mules were laden 
 with the artistic spoil. Jabach, a German banker, probably a Jew, bought largely: his 
 share was afterwards purchased by Louis XIV., and now forms a not inconsiderable por- 
 tion of the pictorial treasures of the Louvre. The Austrian Archduke, Leopold William, 
 then Governor of the Austrian Netherlands, purchased a large number of paintings ; these 
 now form part of the Belvedere Gallery in Vienna. Christina Queen of Sweden, bought 
 the medals and jewels, and Mazarin the sculpture and tapestries. Altogether Cromwell 
 netted £1 18,000 by this prodigious sale. Much as one deplores the dispersion of this won- 
 drous collection, and execrates the vandalism of the Protector in breaking up for ever the 
 finest art collection that our country ever saw, it must in justice be added that he did 
 not allow the cartoons of Raphael to leave England ; they were bought in for /300. A 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 3 
 
 few waifs and strays also remained here, some of the pictures in this glorious gallery having 
 been bought by Englishmen ; and, as we shall see, a great number returned to England, 
 when another and a far more terrible revolution than that which had dispersed them brought 
 many over the Channel again, a century and a half after they had been sold under the 
 Commonwealth . 
 
 Another fine gallery was scattered at the same time as the Royal Collection, that 
 formed by Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, the patron of Wenceslaus Hollar, and one of 
 the most enlightened men of his time. This collection was especially rich in the works of 
 Albrecht Durer and of Holbein; it is for ever to be regretted that a considerable number 
 of the works of these two great German artists perished — either lost at sea or stolen 
 during those troublous times. A few of these works reappeared many years after in a 
 singular manner : a set of splendid chalk drawings, eighty-seven in number, now known as 
 the Windsor Holbeins, were discovered in an old cabinet at Kensington Palace by Queen 
 Caroline, Consort of George II. They are now in the Royal Library at Windsor. 
 
 Charles II. was too indolent and dissipated to trouble himself much for aught but 
 feeding his ducks in St. James’s Park and wooing his mistresses at Whitehall; but he 
 appears to have made some not unsuccessful attempts to recover a portion of his father’s 
 Collection. In this he was materially aided by the States- General of Holland, who returned 
 a large number of paintings which, bought by Van Reynst, had passed into Holland at the 
 sale of the Royal Collection; among them were the priceless set of paintings known as 
 Mantegna’s Triumph of Julius Cascir. At the time of the death of Charles II. there 
 appears to have been in the Royal Collection upwards of a thousand pictures, and a 
 hundred works of sculpture. Most of them, it is supposed, perished in the fire at 
 Whitehall in April, 1691. This fire was a calamity far greater than the sale of the first 
 Royal Collection, for among the works then utterly destroyed were numbered three 
 by Raphael, as many by Leonardo da Vinci, eighteen by Giorgione, an equal number by 
 Titian, thirty by Holbein, thirteen by Van Dyck, six by Correggio, besides many other 
 works which, though by painters of less fame, were of great value. 
 
 Sir Peter Lely appears to have formed the largest collection in England next 
 in importance to those of Lord Arundel and the Duke of Buckingham; his gallery 
 was famed for its fine Van Dycks. After the painter’s death in 1680, this collection 
 was sold. Little encouragement was given to the arts by William III., by Anne, 
 or by the first two Sovereigns of the Hanoverian line. George II. once remarked 
 that he hated “ boetry and bainting,” and he certainly seems to have spoken the truth 
 on this occasion. His son Frederick Prince of Wales, however, was fond of music and 
 painting, and one of the finest works by Rubens that exists in this country, the St. Martm 
 at Windsor Castle, was bought by this prince. George III. showed much discrimination 
 in his patronage of Gainsborough, although it is to be regretted that His Majesty 
 did not give Reynolds his due : it has been suggested that politics had something to 
 do with the King’s bias in favour of Sir Joshua’s only rival. Although the Court had 
 ceased to take the lead in cultivating and encouraging art, collections were formed 
 
4 
 
 introduction. 
 
 extensively during the early part of the eighteenth century, and even previously, by such 
 men as the great Duke of Marlborough, the Dukes of Bedford, Hamilton, and Devon- 
 shire, Lords Lansdowne, Bute, Pembroke, and later on in the century by Lords Carlisle, 
 Exeter, Warwick, Leicester, Spencer, Cowper, and Radnor, and Sir Robert Walpole. The 
 collection of the last, known as the Houghton Gallery, was one of the finest in the 
 country, and when, in 1780, it passed bodily to St. Petersburg, it might be said, without 
 exaggeration, that the country had sustained a national misfortune. With the exception 
 of the last, the collections of paintings then formed are still the glory of such houses as 
 Blenheim and Woburn, Hamilton Palace and Chatsworth, Bowood and Wilton, Castle 
 Howard and Burleigh, Althorp and Holkham, Longford Castle, Panshanger, and Warwick 
 Castle. It soon became a fashion, almost a rage, to collect a gallery of paintings and 
 sculpture, and Italy was ransacked for old masters and old statues. The consequence 
 was that an immense amount of rubbish was gathered in the country-houses and castles 
 of England ; but no one, unless it was the German art critic Waagen, knew what a 
 marvellous accumulation of artistic wealth existed in the old halls and mansions of this 
 country, until the Art Treasures of the Manchester Exhibition, in 1857, revealed to 
 Europe the pictures that were then so freely lent by their owners throughout the land. 
 
 One of the ablest of French art critics, who wrote under the pseudonym of Burger, 
 exclaims in a book in which he gives a graphic notice of the Exhibition at Manchester, 
 “ Of all the countries in the world, Great Britain is the richest in art treasures ; no one 
 knows what England possesses in painting, sculpture, carving, gems, prints, etc. If,” 
 he adds, “ the day ever comes when an inventory is made of the collections enclosed in 
 the private houses and castles of the English aristocracy, it will be, perhaps, the most 
 instructive existing work relating to the history of art.” 
 
 It has already been said that many of the pictures that had formed part of 
 Charles I.’s collection were brought back into this country by a still greater revolution than 
 ours. A few words will show how this happened. “ Egalite,” Duke of Orleans, who 
 had squandered a princely fortune in promoting the revolution which so soon repaid 
 him as he deserved, had inherited from his ancestor, the Regent, the finest collec- 
 tion of paintings then in existence. This had been brought together at the commence- 
 ment of the eighteenth century at a vast cost, partly by the purchase of the Queen 
 of Sweden’s famous gallery (in which, as we have seen, were many that had belonged 
 to the gallery of Charles I.), besides a great number from the galleries of Cardinals Riche- 
 lieu, Mazarin, and Dubois, and from the collections of the Dukes of Noailles, Grammont, 
 Vendbme, and others — to the number of nearly five hundred. This was the world-renowned 
 Orleans Gallery, of the worth of which some idea can be formed by Crozat’s fine work, where 
 some of the best examples of the great Italian, French, and Flemish paintings are engraved. 
 When the Revolution had nearly come to a head, and when Egalite felt his own unsafe, 
 this gallery was offered for sale to the first bidder who could afford to purchase the whole 
 or part of the collection. As there were then no millionaires of the Rothschild stamp 
 existing, the gallery was divided into two parts ; the Italian and French schools forming 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 5 
 
 one portion, while the German, Flemish, and Dutch paintings comprised the other. A 
 Brussels banker at first bought the Italian and French part, and eventually re-sold them in 
 London to the house of Jeremiah Harman, the banker, who bought them for ,£40,000. 
 
 The other half was purchased by a Mr. Slade for 350,000 francs — £"14,000 — and 
 many of these afterwards came into the galleries of English collectors. The greatest 
 picture-dealer of the time was then Mr. Bryan, an able writer on things artistic. He 
 persuaded the Duke of Bridgwater and his nephew Lord Gower — afterwards Marquis of 
 Stafford and Duke of Sutherland — to induce Lord Carlisle, another relation, to buy the lot 
 for £43,000, and, after choosing from the whole collection the pictures they most fancied, to 
 sell the remainder. This turned out a capital speculation for these noble art-dealers ; they 
 chose the paintings they liked best, to the number of ninety-four — which Bryan had 
 separately valued at the sum of 72,000 guineas — and they then sold the remainder for 
 31,000 guineas, with the exception of sixty-six that were disposed of in the following 
 year for £10,000, thus getting the finest pictures of the whole collection for £450. 
 It seems to have been a transaction that must have made all the picture-dealers of the 
 time wild with envy. 
 
 Of the selected ninety-four pictures by far the greater number are now in Bridg- 
 water House, the others are at Castle Howard and Stafford House. It has been the 
 writer’s good fortune to be able to get all of these pictures that were suitable for 
 photography taken for this work ; thus the photographic lens will enable many to see 
 representations of these paintings, more faithful than would be portrayed by any burin or 
 etcher’s needle — representations of paintings not only of the greatest artistic excellence but 
 of the highest historical interest. 
 
 Three years after the sale of the Orleans Gallery another great French collection 
 came into the English art- market ; this was the gallery of the French Finance Minister, De 
 Calonne, which had been collected with much discrimination and good taste. 
 
 The great continental wars at the close of the last and the commencement of the 
 present century caused a great flow of art treasures to be poured into this country ; in Italy 
 Mr. Young Ottley purchased for his own gallery, and Mr. Buchanan for his employers in 
 England, all they could find, whether in churches, palaces, or galleries. Those were the 
 days when most of the great families of Rome, Florence, Genoa, and Naples were half- 
 ruined, and willingly exchanged their ancestral portraits by Giorgione, Titian, or Van Dyck 
 for Mr. Buchanan’s and Mr. Ottley’s English sovereigns ; the wonder is that we should 
 still find so many artistic treasures on the walls of the palaces of the Dorias, the Brignolis, 
 the Colonnas and Corsinis, the Balbis and the Durazzos. 
 
 “ All art objects,” says the French art critic already quoted, “ imported into England 
 remain in it ; it is a country that, as regards works of art, can be compared to the tomb for 
 the dead — the doors in neither case open from within.” Would that this were the case ; 
 unluckily of late years how many sales have not taken place in London in which our 
 collections have not only been sold, but the finest of the old masters’ pictures taken out 
 of the country ; how often of late years has not the hammer of Messrs. Christie, Manson, 
 
 c 
 
6 
 
 INTR OD UCTION. 
 
 and Woods sounded like a knell the loss of some fine painting or art treasure, once the 
 pride of some old English country-house, or the beauty of a London drawing-room— gone 
 for ever, to some gallery or museum in Berlin or Paris. Another fate that yearly lessens 
 the old collections of England is the fires that in a few minutes leave only the 
 blackened ashes of works of art with which the owner would not have parted for any 
 sum of money, and which can never be replaced. When the news comes of such a loss, 
 it sounds as sad to the lover of art as the death of some dear friend, gone for ever, and 
 only to live again in memory! One can hardly recall a single collection in our great 
 country-houses that has not been threatened by such destruction ; probably if one knew 
 the narrow escapes and perils that have been avoided, all would have a similar tale to tell. 
 Windsor Castle, Blenheim, and Castle Howard, have within the last few years been on 
 fire, although more fortunate than Holker Hall, Belvoir, Wynnstay, Duncombe Park, and 
 Clumber. It needs so little to ignite an old house — a badly-snuffed candle, a match trodden 
 under foot, helped by a frosty night and a high wind, may easily be the cause. In an 
 hour, treasures which have been the pride and delight of kings, on which whole gene- 
 rations have gazed with wonder, which have been copied by hundreds, and which have 
 inspired poets, may in one unlucky hour disappear for ever, and leave but a blackened 
 scroll behind. 
 
 But to return to the collections themselves, which Mr. Ottley and Mr. Buchanan 
 were purchasing among the private collections of Italy. The Peninsula also was overrun 
 with art-dealers, who followed the British troops in 1807. Nothing seems to have been 
 sacred to these traders in art; even the Royal Palace of Santiago yielded up some of 
 its finest Murillos ; and, as in Italy, so in Spain, the impoverished nobility were only 
 too willing to imitate Charles Surface, and exchange their pictorial ancestors for lucre. It 
 was from Spain that the colossal paintings by Rubens, the great features of the Grosvenor 
 House collection, were bought. They came from the Convent of Loeches, near Madrid. 
 Seville also lost at this time some of her finest Murillos. 
 
 The taste for collecting paintings kept on increasing during the early years of this 
 century, and in 1824 received a fresh stimulus when Mr. Angerstein’s small but valuable 
 collection was purchased by the Government, and formed the germ of what has now 
 become our National Gallery, a collection of which even a country so rich in private collec- 
 
 tions as ours has reason to be proud. Additions and gifts of whole collections began to 
 pour into the newly founded gallery. Sir George Beaumont, an able artist himself, 
 handed over to the nation his select though small collection. Mr. Carr, in 1834,. 
 bequeathed thirty-one pictures to the gallery. Lord Stafford presented it with the 
 superb Rubens, Peace and War , which, as we have already said, the painter gave to 
 Charles I. ; and the British Institution helped on the good work by liberal gifts. 
 
 It is, however, of the private and not the public galleries of England that we are now 
 writing, and before finishing this rough sketch the names of such great collectors as the 
 following must not be omitted. At the time that the Duke of Bridgwater and his 
 relatives were buying the greater portion of the Orleans Gallery, other collectors were 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 7 
 
 not idle. Of these, the best known were Lord Orosvenor, Lord Egremont, Lord Darnley, 
 Lord Fitzwilliam, Lord Kinnaird, Lord Northwick, and, later on, Lord de Grey, Henry 
 and Thomas Hope, Samuel Rogers, Mr. Munro, the Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, 
 Lord Ashburton, and George IV. 
 
 Of recent years the magnificent collection of the late Lord Hertford is certainly the 
 most extraordinary that has been made during this century. We shall dwell at 
 length on the treasures of this gallery at a future time, and merely now allude to it. 
 Next to the Hertford collection, that formed by Lord Dudley is perhaps the finest, as 
 regards the old masters. The Prince Consort’s collection of early German pictures is of 
 the greatest interest. Then there are Lord Taunton’s collection, the most precious of 
 which, The Madonna and Angels , by Michelangelo, is now in the National Gallery ; 
 Mr. Fuller Maitland s rare collection, and that of Mr. C. Bredell, both now dispersed ; 
 Lord Elcho s small but carefully selected gathering ; Mr. A. Morrison’s ; and the almost 
 endless paintings and works of art that the clan of the Rothschilds has gathered from all 
 parts of Europe. If one could see the treasures at Ferrieres, Mentmore, and the contents 
 of the other houses of the Rothschilds, all together, they would cause even the Hertford 
 collection to appear comparatively small in number, if not in excellence. 
 
 It would be out of our province to do more than allude to another branch among the 
 most interesting of art treasures in this country, such as have lately been exhibited to the 
 public in the Royal Academy, and at the Grosvenor Gallery — the drawings by the old 
 masters. But as we hope to have many opportunities of bringing specimens of the 
 miniatures, which form, historically speaking, the most interesting addition to the private 
 collections of the country, a few words regarding these are necessary. In the year 1865 
 an Exhibition of portrait miniatures, on loan, was opened at the South Kensington 
 Museum, and there again one could not help feeling amazed at the immense artistic wealth 
 that was displayed. Among the owners of these miniatures were Her Majesty — the 
 Royal Collection of miniatures is certainly the finest in the country — the Duke of Buc- 
 cleuch, the Earl of Derby, Mr. Beresford Hope, Sir Dudley Majoribanks, Lord Wharn- 
 cliffe, Lord Spencer, and many others. Over 3,000 miniatures were exhibited ; yet few of 
 the owners sent more than half-a-dozen or so out of their abundance, and probably ten 
 times the number might have been procured : however, there were enough to prove how 
 rich the country is in these most interesting works. Again in the year 1878 many 
 hundreds of miniatures, mostly belonging to the Royal Collection, were again brought 
 under the eyes of the public, and we hope that some of these may appear, reproduced, in 
 the pages of this publication. In the art history of England miniature-painting is of the 
 highest interest. Although we had no good oil-painter until Van Dyck had educated his 
 English pupils, we can boast a consummate miniature-painter of the reign of Elizabeth, 
 Nicholas Hilliard ; and certainly no other nation excelled in the art of such painters in 
 small, as our English artists Nicholas and Peter Oliver, Samuel Cooper, and Richard 
 Cosway. 
 
 The aim of this work is not to attempt a catalogue raisonnd of the collections of 
 
introduction. 
 
 England, illustrated by photographs-such a task would be simply impossible. What is 
 proposed is, to lay before the reader the best and most enduring photographic presentments 
 that can be obtained of the most interesting paintings and miniatures comprised in some 
 of the oldest collections of English Art Treasures. With these we intend to give an 
 account of the previous habitat of every picture, when such a link in former collections 
 can be traced, and thus it is hoped to be able to present to our readers some idea of 
 the great interest that is attached to so many of the great historical paintings that are 
 scattered over the length and breadth of England. 
 
 Ronald Gower. 
 
BRIDGWATER HOUSE. 
 
 THE MADONNA WITH THE PALM-TREE. 
 
 RAPHAEL. 
 
 J HE following is Waagen’s criticism of this glorious painting, the gem 
 of the Bridgwater House Collection : “The Virgin, seated on the right 
 hand, holds the fair-haired Child on her lap, by her veil, part of which 
 she has wound round his body, while he receives, with the most 
 earnest expression of childish joy, some flowers which Joseph presents kneeling. 
 The figure of Christ is very beautiful in the lines, and in the contour there is that 
 delicacy in the indication of the surfaces which is peculiar to Raphael alone. The 
 lights incline to white — the shadows to grey, with a tendency to brown. The 
 under-garment of the Virgin is deep crimson — the mantle dark blue, with a green 
 lining — the sleeves are bright yellow in the lights, and violet in the shadows. The 
 under-garment of Joseph is dark violet — the mantle yellowish-brown — the seams are 
 marked with gold. The circumstance that the Virgin and Joseph are seen in front, 
 the Child very nearly in profile, gives the picture something very definite and clear, 
 which is enhanced by the figures being very decidedly relieved against a fine 
 landscape with blue mountains and a bright horizon. Of all the pictures by 
 Raphael described by Vasari, this approaches nearer to the Holy Family in the 
 gallery at Munich, which was originally painted for Domenico Canigiani, than any 
 other. The delicate face of the Madonna, as well as the whole figure, is taken 
 from the same model ; in both pictures also there is that depth of religious feeling 
 which Raphael retained from the school of Perugino, combined with that more 
 thorough study of nature which he first acquired in Florence. From the rather 
 softer character of some parts, especially of the landscape, I believe, however, that 
 the picture was painted rather later than that at Munich, and may be placed 
 between the latter and the Madonna, called ‘ La belle Jardiniere,’ in the Louvre — 
 that is, about the end of the year 1506. Unfortunately, this fine work, which is 
 certainly one of the most admirable of those executed at Florence, has suffered 
 much injury. In Joseph, many parts, especially the hands, have been badly 
 
THE MADONNA WITH THE PALM-TREE. 
 
 repainted ; the hands and neck of the Virgin have been much injured by cleaning, 
 
 the hands and feet having become quite flat and pale ! 
 
 Mrs. Jameson also describes this Holy Family at great length, and adds 
 a tradition communicated by Louis Philippe to the first Duke of Sutherland, that 
 two old maids, who had inherited the picture and could not agree as to whom it 
 should belong, ended the quarrel by cutting it into halves. A mark can still be seen, 
 and the right-hand side of the painting seems to be placed out of its proper posi- 
 tion. Passavant believed this Holy Family to be the second executed by Raphael 
 for Taddeo Taddei ; it certainly belonged to the Chiverm and d Aumont Collections 
 -from the latter it was bought by a M. de la Noue for 5,000 francs ; it then passed 
 into the Tambonceau Gallery ; then into that of M. de Vanolles, from which it was 
 purchased by the Duke of Orleans, and formed, up to the period of the French Revo- 
 lution, one of the greatest treasures of that famous collection. It was purchased 
 by the Duke of Bridgwater for .£1,200 (and not ^12,000, as the new edition of 
 Passavant’s work on Raphael states). No doubt the injuries alluded to by Waagen 
 took place at the time when the painting was . transferred from panel to the 
 coarse canvas it is now on, and which can distinctly be seen even on the 
 photograph. 
 
 Engraved in 1656, by Gilles Rousselet, with the inscription “ Flores 
 apparverunt in terra nostra by Jean Raymond, reversed, for the Crozat Gallery, 
 in 1729 ; by Massard in the Orleans Gallery, and frequently since. 
 
 Canvas, formerly on panel, 42J inches in diameter. 
 
STAFFORD HOUSE. 
 
 PORTRAIT OF THOMAS HOWARD, EARL 
 OF ARUNDEL AND SURREY, K.G. 
 
 VAN DYCK. 
 
 ORD ARUNDEL was son of Philip, Earl of Arundel (who died in the 
 Tower, 1595) and Anne Dacre, sister and co-heir of Thomas, the last 
 Lord Dacre, of Gillesland. Born about 1586, he bore at the time of his 
 father’s death the title of Lord Maltravers, a barony derived from his 
 ancestors, the Fitzalans. According to Lodge, his early years were passed in a 
 privacy better suited to the adverse circumstances of his family than to his rank, 
 or, more probably to his losses, for he inherited no dignity. Of four succeeding 
 descents of his immediate predecessors, two had suffered death on the scaffold, one 
 was strongly suspected to have been poisoned in the mysterious recess of his 
 prison, and all were attainted. 
 
 Restored in blood by Act of Parliament in 1603, he recovered the family titles 
 and honours, but not the dukedom of Norfolk, which had been forfeited by the 
 attainder of his grandfather, Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolk. He married soon 
 after coming of age, Alathea, daughter and heiress of Gilbert Talbot, Earl of 
 Shrewsbury. During the reigns of James I. and Charles I., Lord Arundel filled 
 high official places at Court, but he was more of a lover of art than of statecraft, 
 and seems not to have cared for politics. He passed many years in Italy, where 
 he amassed a splendid collection of paintings and sculpture. In one of his con- 
 tinental journeys, when sent on an embassy to the Emperor Ferdinand the Great, 
 in 1636, on the subject of the restoration of the Palatinate to the Elector, he spent 
 forty thousand pounds in augmenting his already splendid collection of art- 
 treasures. Whilst in Germany he met Wenceslaus Hollar, whom he brought back 
 with him to England. The Earl died in Italy, in 1646. His collections were dis- 
 persed, the statues eventually finding a shelter in Oxford, where they are known as 
 the Arundel marbles. 
 
 “ Lord Arundel,” Clarendon writes, “ was generally thought to be a proud man, 
 who lived always within himself, and to himself, conversing little with any who 
 
PORTRAIT OF THOMAS HOWARD, EARL OF ARUNDEL. 
 
 were in common conversation ; so that he seemed to live, as it were, in another 
 nation, his house being a place to which all people resorted who resorted to no 
 other place— strangers, or such as affected to look like strangers, and dressed 
 themselves accordingly. He resorted sometimes to the Court, because there 
 was only a greater man than himself ; and went thither the seldomer, because 
 there was a greater man than himself.” Sir Edward Walker describes the 
 Earl as “ tall of stature, and of shape and proportion rather goodly than neat. 
 His countenance was majestical and grave ; his visage long ; his eyes large, black, 
 and piercing ; he had a hooked nose, and some warts or moles on his cheeks ; 
 his countenance was brown ; his hair thin, both on his head and beard ; he 
 was of a stately presence and gait, so that any man who saw him, though in never 
 so ordinary a habit, could not but conclude him to be a great person, his garb and 
 fashion drawing more observation than did the rich apparel of others ; so that it 
 was a common saying of the late Earl of Carlisle, ‘ Here comes the Earl of 
 Arundel, in his plain stuff, and trunk hose, and his beard in his teeth, that looks 
 more like a nobleman than any of us ! ’ He was more learned in recent manners 
 than in books, yet understood the Latin tongue very well, and was master of the 
 Italian ; besides, he was a great favourer of learned men, such as Sir Robert 
 Cotton, Sir Henry Spelman, Mr. Camden, Mr, Selden, and the like. He kept 
 greater distance towards his Sovereign than any person I ever observed, and 
 expected no less from his inferiors, often complaining that the too great affability of 
 the King, and the French garb of the Court, would bring Majesty into contempt.” 
 
 Of this portrait Waagen writes : “ The drawing of the head is extremely delicate, 
 and the execution throughout, especially the beard and mustachios, most careful. 
 The yellowish warm tone of the lights, the warm reddish tone of the shadows, and 
 the character of the dark landscape, indicate Vandyck’s studies of the great Venetian 
 masters, and from that he painted this fine picture in the first year of his residence 
 in England. Unhappily the hands are injured by cleaning.” Mrs. Jameson thinks 
 this portrait was painted about 1635. Probably it formed part of Lord Arundel’s 
 collection. This painting was formerly in the Orleans Gallery, but when that 
 gallery was sold it could not be found, and a deduction of 10,000 francs in the 
 price of the whole was consequently made. However, it eventually reappeared at 
 the sale of the collection of M. Robit, at Paris, in 1801, and was then purchased 
 by the Marquis of Stafford for 500 guineas. 
 
 Lord Arundel sat repeatedly both to Rubens and to Van Dyck. One of the. finest 
 of his portraits by the former is a superb half-length at Warwick Castle, in which 
 he wears armour and holds his truncheon of Earl Marshal. There is also a head of 
 him (in which the warts mentioned by Walker are shown), by Rubens, at Castle 
 Howard ; but none gives the character of the Earl of Arundel, to our thinking, 
 better than this portrait — so simple and yet so noble, so majestic and refined 1 The 
 likeness of the head to the first Lord Lytton has often struck observers. 
 
 This portrait has been finely engraved by W. Sharp, by Tardieu, and Tomkins ; 
 but all of these give but a weak idea of this picture compared to the photograph. 
 
 Canvas, 3 ft. 4! in. by 2 ft. 6J in. 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 PORTRAIT OF CAROLINE, COUNTESS 
 OF CARLISLE. 
 
 SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS. 
 
 ADY CAROLINE GOWER was second daughter of Granville, First 
 Marquis of Stafford, by Lady Louisa Egerton. She was born in 
 1753, and in 1770 married Frederick, Fifth Earl of Carlisle. She 
 died in 1824. 
 
 She is represented three-quarter length, standing, her right arm across the 
 stump of a tree, a rose in her hand ; her cloak is lined with ermine ; a plait of 
 hair, entwined with a ribbon, falls over her left shoulder. 
 
 This Sir Joshua has shared the fate of nearly all the other portraits by the 
 same artist at Castle Howard, and is a mere ghost of what it must have been 
 when painted in 1770. It was engraved in mezzotint by J. Watson in 1773. A 
 fine proof was sold at Christie’s in 1873 for £20. 
 
 Canvas, 4 ft. li in. by 3 ft. 3 in. 
 
— 
 
CHRISTINA OF DENMARK, DUCHESS 
 OF MILAN. 
 
 HOLBEIN. 
 
 HERE were few who visited the recent (1880) exhibition of works by 
 the old masters, at Burlington House, who were not struck by the 
 excellence of this painting. By the critics it was unanimously awarded 
 the palm. Mr. Comyns Carr, writing in “The Academy,” calls it “a 
 picture which unquestionably ranks as one of the grandest exhibitions of artistic 
 genius that has survived to us. It may be doubted whether even Holbein himself 
 has produced its fellow, for it has a certain distinction of style which even the 
 marvellous portrait of Morett, at Dresden, cannot rival. The painter, it would 
 seem, has here been completely fascinated by his subject, for he has not sought to 
 add a single accessory to the graceful figure, nor has he attempted to introduce a 
 vestige of ornament into the simple blue background against which the fair face 
 and dark robes are relieved.” And a writer in “ The Athenaeum ” says : “ We quite 
 agree with Dr. Woltmann that it is the finest Holbein in England ; we can go 
 further, and say that of its class it is the master’s masterpiece.” 
 
 Besides its artistic merit, this painting possesses an historic interest of no 
 common character. Christina, daughter of Christian II. of Denmark, was born 
 about 1521 : she was married early to Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan, who left 
 her a widow in 1 535. 
 
 Two years later, Henry VIII. of England, after the death of Queen Jane 
 Seymour, made overtures for her hand to her cousin, the Emperor Charles V. ; and 
 Holbein was despatched to Brussels to paint her portrait for the King. We 
 have the following description of her personal appearance written by John 
 Hutton, English Minister at Brussels, at the close of 1437 “ I am informed she 
 
 is of the age of 16 years, very high of stature for that age. She is higher than the 
 Regent (Maria of Hungary), a goodly personage of body and competent of beauty, 
 of favour excellent, soft of speech, and very gentle in countenance. She weareth 
 mourning aparel after the manner of Italy.” Hutton added She is not so 
 white as was the late Queen (Jane Seymour); but she hath a singular good 
 countenance, and when she chanceth to smile, there appeareth two pitts in her 
 
CHRISTINA OF DENMARK, DUCHESS OF MILAN. 
 
 cheeks and one in her chin, the which becomith her excellently well. ... In her 
 speaking she lispeth, which doth nothing misbecome her. 
 
 From another letter written by Hutton, to the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Cromwell 
 dated March 14th, 1438, we gather that Holbein made in three hours a portrait ol 
 the Duchess, which was “ very perffight.” This portrait, Mr. Scharf maintains is 
 the small one at Windsor Castle, which is almost exactly the same as the Arundel 
 Castle portrait, except that it is but three-quarter length ; and he is further of the 
 opinion that the present portrait was painted by Holbein, as was his custom, from 
 the earlier sketch. But both the late Mr. Wornum and the late Dr. Woltmann, 
 with whom Mr. Comyns Carr agrees, think that the finished, though small, 
 painting at Windsor Castle could not have been executed in three hours. 
 
 With the exception of this portrait, Holbein’s mission was fruitless. Tradition 
 says that the Duchess refused Henry’s hand, on the ground that she had but one 
 head, saying, “ if nature had endowed her with two, one should have been at his 
 Majesty’s disposal.” But more recent research has proved that the match was 
 broken off by the Emperor Charles V. Christina, in 1541, married Francois, 
 Duke of Lorraine and Bas. 
 
 “ The history of this portrait,” says the writer in “ The Athenaeum ” already 
 quoted, “ has been recovered by Mr. Scharf and others. According to the cata- 
 logue of the king’s pictures in the charge of Sir Anthony Denny at Westminster, 
 in 1542, it was then in the royal collection, and was designated ‘The Duchyes of 
 Myllayne, a greete table, being her whole stature,’ No. 12. No. 183 in the same 
 collection was the smaller picture, which is now at Windsor. When it left the 
 royal possession is not known. Zucchero saw it in the collection of the Earl of 
 Pembroke, and ‘took such great delight in it that he declared he had not seen the 
 like in art and delicacy even in Rome.’ This would be about 1 57 5 - From the 
 Pembroke collection it passed, possibly with the Windsor collection of Holbein’s 
 drawings, into the omnium gatherum of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, where 
 Sandrart noticed it in 1627. Since this time it has remained with the house of 
 Howard. Vertue (c. 1750) saw it at Mr. Howard’s, in Soho Square ; it was after- 
 wards at Worksop, then belonging to the Duke of Norfolk, and escaped the fire 
 which destroyed many pictures in that mansion. Mentioned in ‘ The Beauties of 
 England and Wales,’ being there in 1813, it was removed at a later date to Arundel 
 Castle, of which it is still one of the choicest ornaments, and where it was known 
 only to few students until the present owner lent it to the Royal Academy.” 
 
 The photograph shows but half the painting, which represents the Duchess 
 standing full length. She still “ weareth mourning aparel after the manner of Italy.” 
 A black hood conceals the upper part of her forehead. A long black cloak, lined 
 with sable, covers a black satin gown. The ring on her finger is a ruby. The 
 background is dark blue. On a piece of paper attached to the background by four 
 seals, may be read, “ Christine daughter to Christierne K of Denmark, Duches of 
 Lorrayne and hered. Dutches of Milan.” 
 
 Panel, 5 ft. 10 in. by 2 ft. 8 in. 
 
STAFFORD HOUSE. 
 
 THE PRODIGAL SON. 
 
 MURILLO. 
 
 attempts have been made to obtain a photograph of this, perhaps 
 finest painting by the great Andalusian master that England 
 ;esses ; but although the original painting was taken down from 
 the wall of the Gallery at Stafford House and carried into the 
 garden, and there photographed, the result was only a failure. Fortunately a 
 very perfect and literal copy had been made of the “ Prodigal Son ” by Mr. G. D. 
 Tomlinson, of Huddersfield, and from this copy a photograph has been obtained. 
 
 The history of this picture is an interesting one : it formed part of the series of 
 eight paintings which Murillo painted for the Hospital of Charity at Seville, all 
 scriptural subjects treating of acts of charity and mercy. The other seven are: — 
 “Abraham receiving the Angels,” also at Stafford House, “ The Charity of San Juan 
 de Dios,” “ The Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes,” “ Our Lord healing the Para- 
 lytic at the Pool of Bethesda,” “ St. Elizabeth of Hungary tending the Sick,” 
 “ Moses striking the Rock,” and “ St. Peter released from Prison by the Angel.” 
 
 Of these three are in England, viz. : “The Prodigal Son,” “Abraham and the 
 Angels,” and “ The Healing of the Paralytic,” the last belonging to Colonel Tom- 
 line : three are still in their original places — the “ Moses,” “ The Miracle of the 
 Loaves and Fishes,” and “ S. Juan de Dios;” the “St. Elizabeth” is now in the 
 Academy of San Fernando at Madrid, and “The release of St. Peter” was sold 
 after Soult’s death in Paris for 151,000 francs (^6,040), and is now in the Imperial 
 Gallery at St. Petersburg. 
 
 In the building for which they were painted, this series of works repre- 
 senting deeds of divine and spiritual charity remained until the Peninsular War, 
 when the rapacious Marshal Soult despoiled this sacred shrine, carrying off in his 
 fourgons “The Prodigal Son,” the “Abraham,” and two other paintings by 
 Murillo. 
 
 Cean Bermudez, the Vasari of Spanish painters, who saw the set in the places 
 for which they had been painted, gave the preference to “ The Prodigal Son,” and 
 
THE PRODIGAL SON. 
 
 placed second the “ St. Elizabeth,” a picture which is regarded, even in Spain, as 
 one of his finest works, if not his chief masterpiece. 
 
 Viardot, in his“Merveilles de la Peinture,” writes : — “ Ce groupe du fils, sordide 
 et repentant, qui s’agenouille aux pieds du pfere, noble et affectueux; ce groupe des 
 serviteurs s’empressant d’apporter des aliments et des habits ; jusqu’au petit chien 
 de la maison, qui vient reconnaitre et caresser le fugitif ; jusqu’au veau gras qu’on 
 va tuer en rdjouissance; tout cela est grand et merveilleux, par la composition 
 ingdnieuse, par l’expression puissante, par l’incomparable coloris. C’est peut-6tre 
 cet Enfant prodigue qui m^rite, hors de l’Espagne, qu’on le nomme la premiere 
 oeuvre de son auteur.” 
 
 Waagen, in his “ Treasures of Art in Great Britain,” has also spoken highly of 
 this work: — “ The harmony of colours, the silvery tones, and the perfect rendering of 
 full daylight, place this picture in the highest rank of art.” Soult received 1 1 ,000 
 guineas for this superb piece of plunder. 
 
 Mrs. Jameson is even more enthusiastic than either the French or German art 
 critics ; she writes : — “ I know not any picture whatever which can go beyond this 
 in heartfelt nature and dramatic power. The execution is as fine as possible ; the 
 drawing so firm ; the colours so tenderly fused into each other ; the shadows so 
 soft ; the effect of the whole so in harmony with the sentiment and subject, that I 
 consider it a rare example of absolute excellence in its class.” 
 
 More than thirty years ago the author of “Annals of the Artists of Spain” 
 expresses his regret that this and its companion pictures should not have been 
 engraved, and that “ a fire at Stafford House or Carlton Terrace might deprive the 
 world of some of Murillo’s most important works.” 
 
 Unfortunately no attempt has been made to engrave either “The Prodigal 
 Son ” or the “Abraham and Angels,” and it is to be feared that until such subjects 
 as these become more popular with the public than the commonplace and often 
 vulgar prints exposed in London printsellers’ windows, no engravings will be made 
 of these almost inspired works. 
 
 Canvas 7 ft. 9 in. by 8 ft. 6 in. 
 

HERTFORD HOUSE. 
 
 INNOCENCE. 
 
 GREUZE. 
 
 HIS painting, which was one of the gems of the Pourtalds collection, 
 is thus described by M. Mantz, in his notice of the works in that 
 Gallery shortly before the sale : — 
 
 “The ‘Greuze’ will be one of the lions of the Pourtalds sale. It 
 represents, in his happiest manner, one of those innocent figures in which an 
 uncertain age combines the precocious coquetterie of the woman with the naivete 
 of the child. Seen at half-length in an oval frame, she holds a lamb, which she 
 presses tenderly to her breast ; and she smiles, not without meaning, like a pretty 
 maiden, who, though perhaps ignorant of love to-day, may not be invincible 
 to-morrow— a subject which Greuze has treated many times. This painting is 
 in the artist’s good style ; and on the day of the sale it will doubtless realize a 
 considerable sum.” 
 
 M. Mantz was not mistaken in his estimate of the value of this excellent 
 work. It was purchased by the late Marquis of Hertford for 100,200 francs — a 
 sum larger, probably, than all the painter’s works sold during his lifetime had 
 been able to produce. 
 
 As early as 1795, this work was sold at the dispersion of the Duclos Dufresnoy 
 collection for 25,600 assignats. 
 
NEWNHAM P ADD OX. 
 
 DONNA MARIA, INFANTA OF SPAIN. 
 
 GERBIER. 
 
 HIS picture has of late years been twice exhibited — once at Manchester, 
 with the “Art Treasures” of 1857, and again in the National Portrait 
 Exhibition of 1866, at South Kensington. Each time it was catalogued 
 as by an unknown artist. 
 
 On the right-hand top corner of the painting we read : “This is the picture of 
 the Infanta of Spain that was brought over by the Duke of Bucks. She was to 
 have married King Charles the First.” If this inscription be trustworthy, one can 
 easily believe that it is the work of Sir Balthasar Gerbier, for that painter was in 
 attendance on the Prince and Buckingham at Madrid, both for the purpose of 
 painting the portrait of the Infanta, and as a diplomatist. 
 
 The subject of this painting, Donna Maria, was the second daughter of 
 Philip III. of Spain. How negotiations were opened by James I. for her hand for 
 his son Charles; how “Baby Charles” and “Steenie” — travelling incognito as John 
 and Thomas Smith — visited, in 1623, the Spanish Court, and were royally treated by 
 Philip IV., the Infanta’s brother ; and how the visit proved fruitless, are well-known 
 matters of history. The Infanta subsequently became Queen of Hungary. At the 
 time that this portrait was painted she was in the bloom of youth. Howell, in his 
 “Letters,” says of her: “She is a very comely lady, rather of a Flemish com- 
 plexion than Spanish, fair-haired, and carrying a most pure mixture of red and 
 white in her face. She is full and big-lipped, which is held a beauty rather than a 
 blemish.” This description tallies exactly with Gerbier’s painting, in which she 
 wears a large ruff, an embroidered white dress, and a large jewelled cross. 
 
 In the Madrid Gallery there is a bust portrait (No. 1072) of the Infanta Maria 
 by Velazquez— very similar to Gerbier’s— but she is evidently some years older. 
 
 Gerbier was born at Antwerp about 1591, and came to England in 1613 in the 
 retinue of the Duke of Buckingham. Here he seems to have played the double 
 part of courtier and painter, much in the same way as Rubens did, and, curiously 
 enough, was employed in Flanders by Charles I. to negotiate privately a treaty 
 with Spain, at the same time that Rubens was employed by the Infanta for that pur- 
 pose. He was patronized successively by James I. or rather Buckingham, Charles I. 
 — by whom he was knighted— Oliver Cromwell, and Charles II. He died in 1667. 
 Besides being a miniature painter, he was an architect, and also wrote treatises on 
 architecture and numerous other subjects. He called himself Baron d’Ouvilly. 
 
 Panel, 1 ft. 10 in. by 1 ft. 4 in. 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 THE HOUSEMAID. 
 
 GAINSBOROUGH. 
 
 « 
 
 HIS picture will come as a pleasant surprise to lovers of Gainsborough, 
 for, although in one at least of his paintings a similar figure has been 
 introduced, I doubt if a lovelier face ever looked out from one of his 
 enchanted canvases. 
 
 This housemaid, who must be a princess in disguise, ora Cinderella waiting for 
 her glass slipper, reminds one of the lovely Mrs. Graham, who fills the great room 
 of the National Gallery in Edinburgh with beauty. 
 
 The picture is almost a monochrome, for, with the exception of the face, it 
 is painted throughout in a Van Dyck-brown ; the size of the photograph is more 
 adapted to the unfinished state in which it has been left, than the life-size propor- 
 tions of the original. 
 
 It is said that Lord Carlisle was so delighted with the sketch in its present 
 state, that he would not allow Gainsborough to finish it: and certainly it is not only 
 a lovely creation of the painter’s brush, but also a most interesting work as showing 
 the manner in which the artist “ laid in ” his figures, and the way in which he dashed 
 in those vigorous touches which, out of a little brown paint, soon produced such 
 wonderful results — a dab or two of carmine, and a mouth like a rosebud seems to 
 breathe ; two touches in blue, and eyes sparkle for ever from the artist’s canvas. 
 
 Canvas, 7 ft. 10 in. by 4 ft. 1 1 in. 
 
HERTFORD HOUSE. 
 
 THE HALT 
 
 MEISSONIER. 
 
 N a notice of the collection of the Due de Moray, written in 1863, 
 M. Lagrange thus refers to this charming work by Meissonier : — 
 
 “ While each figure, both of man and beast, retains a remarkable 
 individual value, all contribute to the general effect and compose an animated 
 scene. The necessity of grouping many living objects has called forth all the 
 painter’s power of arrangement, whilst the opportunity of blending together many 
 tones shows his great powers as a colourist. 
 
 “A cavalier dressed in blue sits on the white horse : the man on the bay 
 wears a green coat, and the rider of the black horse a red coat. The red-tinted 
 beams on the inn-front, the waistcoat of the smoker, the grey dress of the woman, 
 the white linen, the fowls, the walls, the trees, are all united by light half-tones. 
 The general view is clear and crisp, without, however, possessing the brilliant live- 
 liness of ‘ L’ Amour paisible.’ ” 
 
 Meissonier painted “ The Halt ” for the Due de Moray, and at his request 
 afterwards enlarged it. By examining the photograph carefully, it will be seen that 
 a portion has been added both to the top and the right-hand side of the painting, 
 showing more of the inn, and a view down a street in the village. “The Halt” 
 was etched by L. Flameng before these additions were made. 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 THE THREE MARIES. 
 
 ANNIBALE CARRACCI. 
 
 HIS is one of the most celebrated pictures of the world. 
 
 Owing to the dark tones of this truly sublime painting, the photo- 
 graph is dull and indistinct, but even in this shadow the expression of 
 passionate grief in the faces of the agonized mourners is seen. 
 
 Much has been written on this picture, but words can not describe this 
 masterpiece of Carracci’s : the painting is worthy of its subject, and no praise can 
 exceed this truth. 
 
 At the sale of the Orleans Collection this picture was purchased by Lord 
 Carlisle for 4,000 guineas, a larger sum than any single picture — the Raphaels, 
 now at Bridgwater House, not excepted — fetched at that sale. 
 
 The finest Raphael of the Orleans Collection, known by the name of “ La Belle 
 Vierge,” was bought by the Duke of Bridgwater for 3,000 guineas, and the next 
 highest priced work to it was “ The Raising of Lazarus,” by Sebastiano del Piombo, 
 bought by Mr. Angerstein for 3,500 guineas, and now in the National Gallery. 
 
 Canvas, 3 ft. 7 in. by 3 ft. \ in. 
 

BRIDGWATER HOUSE. 
 
 PORTRAIT OF A LADY. 
 
 REMBRANDT. 
 
 SUPERB photograph of a superb picture. Waagen dismisses this 
 unknown portrait summarily as “ one of his (Rembrandt’s) unusually 
 light pictures, taken in full light and carefully finished ; ” Mrs. Jameson 
 says little more, and J. Smith, in his Catalogue Raisonnf: of Rem- 
 brandt’s Works, merely says that this picture is painted in the artist’s finished 
 manner in 1632. 
 
 It appears to have passed towards the end of last century from the collection 
 of the Comte de Merle, for the insignificant sum of £60, into that of M. Destouches, 
 and when sold in 1794, actually only fetched ^40; if either of these sums were 
 multiplied by ten it could not, I believe, exceed the figure which any collector 
 would now willingly pay for this work. 
 
 Even the matchless Van Rijn never exceeded the wonderful glow and look of 
 life that pervades the face, nor painted with greater effect the lace and pearls which 
 adorn this fair Dutch lady’s form. 
 
 It was engraved by Tomkins in the “ Stafford Gallery.” 
 
 Panel, 2 ft. 3} in. by 1 ft. 9 in. 
 
HERTFORD HOUSE. 
 
 CARDINAL RICHELIEU ON THE RHONE. 
 
 DELAROCHE. 
 
 pHE Salon of 1831 was rich in works by Delaroche : it contained, amongst 
 others, “The Princes in the Tower,” “The Death-bed of Mazarin,’ 
 “ Cromwell opening the Coffin of Charles I.,” and “ Cardinal Richelieu 
 towing Cinq Mars and de Thou on the Rh6ne.” 
 
 The history of the conspiracy of Cinq Mars is well known. Cinq Mars and de 
 Thou were arrested on the 13th of June, 1642 ; theformerwas taken to thecastleof 
 Montpellier, the latter was imprisoned at Tarascon. “ Richelieu embarked,” we read 
 in Henri Martin’s History of France, “ on the 17th of August at Tarascon for Lyons, 
 drawing after him one of his captives, de Thou, in a boat towed by his own. He 
 did not arrive at Lyons until the 3rd of September, as the state of his health obliged 
 him to travel gently. De Thou was confined in Pierre-Encise, where he found 
 already the due de Bouillon. Cinq Mars joined them the following day.” 
 
 It is therefore by artistic licence that Delaroche — generally correct in historic 
 details — has represented Cinq Mars as taking part in this grim pilgrimage. 
 
 Cinq Mars and de Thou suffered death at Lyons on the 12th of September ; but 
 the life of the due de Bouillon was spared. 
 
 In the painting Richelieu is depicted reclining, in accordance with an account of 
 the day, upon a bed hung with taffeta velvet upon the deck of the barge which he 
 had ordered expressly for the occasion. At poop and prow are several of his guard 
 in their scarlet cassocks, embroidered with gold and silver silk, and nobles of the 
 court and courtesans with flippant laughter accompany the heartless minister. 
 
 The painting was purchased for 1,500 francs by M. de Pourtalds, who is said 
 to have subsequently refused 40,000 francs for it. At the sale of that collection, in 
 1865, it was put up in one lot with “ The Death-bed of Mazarin,” by the same 
 painter, above alluded to, and the pair realized ^3,208. 
 
 “ Richelieu on the Rh6ne” has been engraved in mezzotint by A. F. Girard. 
 
 Canvas, 1 ft. 10 J in. by 3 ft. 3 in. 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
BRIDGWATER HOUSE. 
 
 “THE MADONNA OF THE BRIDGWATER 
 
 GALLERY.” 
 
 RAPHAEL. 
 
 N the case of this exquisite picture of Raphael’s, no doubt has been 
 shown by even the most bigoted of critics as to its genuineness : it is 
 a work that speaks for itself, and even in the photographs the divine 
 power of the great master must be felt by the least sensitive to the 
 beautiful in art. 
 
 Passavant styles this painting “ The Madonna of the Bridgwater Gallery,” as if 
 he felt it to be of even greater merit than the “ Madonna of the Palm Tree.” 
 
 Mrs. Jameson, whose account of this collection is far better and more detailed 
 than that of any other critic, says of this Madonna, “ This picture was painted about 
 1512, when Raphael was in his twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh year. For whom 
 it was originally painted does not appear. It was purchased out of Italy, by 
 Colbert, Marquis of Seignelay, (son of the great minister,) and from his collection 
 passed into the Orleans Gallery, whence it was obtained by the Duke of Bridgewater, 
 at the valuation of ^3,000.” 
 
 That this work has suffered from cleaning is an unhappy fact : in places the 
 painting is so slight that the original outline can be seen through the thin coating 
 of colour. 
 
 There are many copies and repetitions of this Madonna — one at Berlin, another 
 at Frankfort, one at Naples, and several in various private galleries. 
 
 It was transferred from panel to canvas by Hacquin when still in the Palais 
 Royal, and to this operation Waagen ascribes the injuries, the attempts to repair 
 which are, unfortunately, but too evident ; the head of the Virgin shows signs of 
 having been retouched. 
 
 It has been frequently engraved, by Larmessin for the Crozat Gallery, and 
 Romanet for the Orleans, &c. 
 
 The dress of the Madonna is crimson ; her mantle, blue. 
 
 Canvas, 2 ft. 7J in. by 1 ft. 10 in. 
 
' ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HERTFORD HOUSE. 
 
 PORTRAIT OF A CAVALIER. 
 
 FRANS HALS. 
 
 HIS portrait of an officer is probably the finest example in England 
 of the bright rollicking Dutch portrait painter Frans Hals. 
 
 It appears to have been executed about 1624 ; its early history, 
 as well as the name of the person represented, is unknown. 
 
 It belonged to the well-known collector M. Nieuwenhuys, who sold it to 
 Count Pourtales for less than two thousand francs ; and at the sale of the Count’s 
 collection of works of art, it was purchased by the late Marquis of Hertford for 
 51,000 francs. 
 
 It is now one of the glories of the Hertford House collection.' 
 
 It has been etched by F. la Guillermie, and by L. Lowenstam. 
 
 Canvas, 2 ft. 8 in. by 2 ft. 1 j in. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
BRIDGWATER HOUSE. 
 
 THE MUSICIANS. 
 
 WILLEM VAN MIERIS. 
 
 ?R- W. YOUNG OTTLEY says of this elaborate painting, that 
 “ W. Mieris is said to have executed this highly-finished picture in 
 composition (competition ?) with other artists for a premium. It bears 
 his name and the date 1712, and as far as respects the mechanism of 
 painting, is certainly an extraordinary performance.” 
 
 Mrs. Jameson thinks it an “ excellent picture of his earliest period (she 
 cannot have noticed the date : he was born in 1662), when he painted more like his 
 father, Frans Mieris." Waagen also styles it “an excellent picture,” and in 
 Kugler’s “ Handbook of Painting” (revised by J. A. Crowe) we read, “this is of 
 his earlier time, and approaches in every respect to the excellence of his father.” 
 
 It was formerly in the Locquet collection, at Amsterdam ; and was purchased 
 in 1781 for 1,165 florins (£105). I can find no signature to this picture. 
 
 Engraved by Warren, in the Stafford Gallery. 
 
 Panel, ift. 7 in. by 1 ft. 3 in. 
 
CASTLE HOWARD 
 
 THE ADORATION OF THE KINGS. 
 
 MABUSE. 
 
 F this marvel of painting, Michael Bryan, who sold it to the fifth Earl of 
 Carlisle in 1798, says: “His most capital and distinguished performance 
 was a picture painted for the altar-piece of the church of the Abbey at 
 Grammont ; it represents the Wise Men’s Offering, a composition of 
 several figures, admirably grouped, with a fine expression in the heads ; and the 
 draperies, and ornamental accessories, coloured and finished in the most beautiful 
 manner. It appears by the register of the abbey, that this admirable production 
 occupied the painter seven years, and that he was paid two thousand golden pistoles 
 for his labour. When Albert and Isabella were governors of the Netherlands, they 
 purchased it of the monks, and placed it in the private chapel of their palace. After 
 the death of Prince Charles of Lorraine, it was sold, with the rest of his pictures, 
 and was afterwards brought to this country.” It appears that Lord Carlisle obtained 
 this picture from Bryan for five hundred guineas, and a Poussin valued at two 
 hundred guineas. 
 
 After more than three hundred years, it has, within the last half-dozen years, 
 shown signs of decay. The colours are as brilliant, apparently, as when Mabuse 
 painted the work, but ominous cracks are spreading down the picture, where the 
 panels and the thick rough-hewn oak are joined, and are even perceptible in the 
 photograph. 
 
 Critics have imagined that beside the kneeling figure, which is undoubtedly a 
 portrait of the Duke of Burgundy, other portraits can be detected, such as that of 
 Lucas van Leyden and Albrecht Durer ; and Waagen thinks that “ the small head 
 with a hat and feathers, at a window, may, perhaps, be the portrait of Mabuse : ” 
 but this can only be conjectural. 
 
 Not only is the painting, as Waagen writes, “ the masterpiece of this painter, 
 but it is also one of the most admirable specimens of the whole early Netherlandish 
 School.” 
 
 Mabuse has introduced his signature, “Gossaert,” in two places in the picture. 
 
 Panel, 5 ft. 9 m. by 5 ft. 3Jin. 
 


 
THOMAS HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK. 
 
 HOLBEIN. 
 
 ijALPOLE mentions several copies of a portrait by Holbein of Thomas 
 Howard, third Duke of Norfolk. Three still contend for the palm : 
 one is at Castle Howard, a second at Arundel Castle, and a third is at 
 Windsor Castle. The two last are almost precisely similar, while that 
 at Castle Howard differs only in having a flowered background and in the absence 
 of the inscription. 
 
 Which is the original of the three is a question that has puzzled many critics. 
 The Arundel and Windsor pictures both appeared at the last “Old Masters’” Exhi- 
 bition (1879-80). In the catalogue the former was styled a “reproduction” of the 
 latter ; and Mr. Comyns Carr mentions the latter among those works which seem 
 to him “ indisputable Holbeins.” 
 
 On the other hand we have the following opinion in favour of the Arundel 
 picture from a well-known writer in the “Athenaeum.” Speaking of the Windsor 
 picture, he says : “ There is no doubt that it is a Holbein, but it appears not to be 
 
 what maybe called the original painted for the Howard family Our opinion 
 
 is that the Arundel portrait is the original, but not the better picture.” And 
 Dr. Waagen seems to have preferred the Arundel Castle to the Windsor picture. 
 Mr. Wornum thought the former was the first and original likeness : while 
 Dr. Woltmann says, “ Among the numerous copies of the Duke’s portrait which 
 appear in England, the picture at Arundel does not make the best impression ; it 
 is only an old copy, and the true original in the former Arundel Collection must 
 have been carried elsewhere.” Dr. Woltmann does not seem to be aware of the 
 inscription on the back of the Castle Howard portrait, which runs thus : “ Ex. Col. 
 Arund. H. Holbein P n .” If this inscription is not a forgery, it is possible that the 
 Castle Howard picture is, after all, the “ true original.” 
 
 Thomas Howard, eldest son of Thomas, second Duke of Norfolk, was born in 
 1473 (?). He distinguished himself at sea, and became Lord High Admiral. 
 
THOMAS HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK. 
 
 He was created Earl of Surrey in 1513, and commanded the English army which 
 defeated James IV. of Scotland at Flodden in that year. He succeeded to the 
 dukedom in 1524, and was made Earl Marshal ten years later. On the disgrace of 
 his niece, Queen Katharine Howard, he was attainted and imprisoned for high 
 treason : the warrant of his execution was despatched on the 29th of January, 1547 ; 
 but as King Henry VIII. died the night before the day appointed for his death, his 
 life was saved. He remained in prison during Edward VI. ’s reign ; he was re- 
 leased in the same year that Mary succeeded to the throne, but died shortly after- 
 wards in 1554. 
 
 In the picture before us the Duke is represented in a black cap, black coat, and 
 with a fur-lined surcoat. In his right hand is the gold stick of Earl Marshal, and 
 in his left the white staff of Lord Chamberlain. He wears the collar and badge of 
 the Garter. 
 
 The background is dark green, and bears the following inscription : “ thomas 
 
 DUKE OF NORFOLK MARSHALL AND TREASURER OF INGLONDE THE LXVI YERE OF 
 HIS AGE.” 
 
 Panel, 2 ft. 6 in. by 1 ft. 1 1 in. 
 

 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 CAROLINE, LADY CAWDOR. 
 
 REYNOLDS. 
 
 ADY CAROLINE HOWARD was the eldest daughter of Frederick, 
 fifth Earl of Carlisle, and married John, first Earl Cawdor in 1789. 
 
 This picture, which, like all Sir Joshua Reynolds’s portraits of 
 children, charms us by its simplicity, was painted in 1777. It was 
 engraved in mezzotint by Valentine Green in the following year. 
 
 Canvas, 4 ft. 7} in. by 3 ft. 8J in. 
 

DOVER HOUSE. 
 
 THE DUCHESS OF DEVONSHIRE. 
 
 GAINSBOROUGH. 
 
 HE charming monochrome oil-painting, of which this is the photo- 
 graph, is the original of the life-size reproduction, or copy, of the 
 beautiful Duchess, the loss of which, after passing into the hands of a 
 well-known picture dealer at the Wynn Ellis sale, caused so great a 
 sensation in the world of art a few years ago. Perhaps the larger painting may 
 have been commenced by Gainsborough, and, being like many of his works at the 
 time of his death, left in an unfinished state, have been completed by an inferior 
 hand. The true story of that portrait will, probably, never come to light. 
 
 At any rate, the small and highly finished monochrome at Dover House is a 
 perfect specimen of the delicate oil sketches that Gainsborough often made before 
 commencing his life-size portraits. For many years this portrait was considered an 
 undoubted likeness of the Spencer Duchess (Georgiana) of Devonshire ; but since 
 the stir caused by the disappearance of the larger painting, considerable doubt 
 has been thrown upon this being Georgiana, and art critics have with some reason 
 maintained that it is not the bright leader of the Whigs that we have before us, but 
 her friend and successor, Lady Betty Hervey, who became Lady Elizabeth Foster, 
 and died Duchess of Devonshire. 
 
 In favour of this being Georgiana’s portrait, it may interest those curious 
 on the subject to know that her daughter, Lady Carlisle, always believed this to be 
 her mother’s portrait; and that Lady Carlisle’s son-in-law, Lord Dover (who 
 purchased this and its companion, the portrait of Mrs. Sheridan) was of the same 
 opinion. There is no doubt that Georgiana frequently sat for her portrait to 
 Gainsborough, and that in the year 1783 the painter exhibited her portrait at the 
 Royal Academy. And there is no record of Gainsborough ever having painted 
 the portrait of Lady Elizabeth Foster. On the other hand, it is not easy to trace 
 any likeness between this portrait and the undoubted full-length portrait of 
 Georgiana by Gainsborough at Althorp, in which the Duchess’s retronssd nose is 
 not disguised, whereas in the lovely face before us the nose is as straight as that of 
 
THE DUCHESS OF DEVONSHIRE. 
 
 a Greek statue. And also a very strong resemblance exists between this picture 
 and a portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds of Lady Elizabeth Foster, at Chatsworth, 
 in which not only the features, but even the way of dressing the hair, are identical. 
 Whether it be the Duchess Georgiana or Lady Elizabeth Foster, a more attractive 
 portrait than this was never limned — even by Gainsborough. Both ladies were 
 remarkable as well for beauty as for the homage they excited. Georgiana — the 
 brightest, gayest, and, it must be added, giddiest of the great ladies of the latter 
 half of the eighteenth century, the “ever dearest Duchess” of Charles James Fox, 
 Georgiana, whose poetic talent met with so flattering a tribute from Coleridge 
 himself in verses, the refrain of which end in the well-known lines : — 
 
 “ Oh, lady, nursed in pomp and pleasure ! 
 
 Whence learnt you that heroic measure ? ” 
 
 whom Horace Walpole dubbed the “ Empress of Fashion ” — was the daughter of 
 John Earl Spencer. She was born in 1757, married in 1774 the fifth Duke of 
 Devonshire, and died in 1806. 
 
 Hearing of her death, the Prince Regent said, “ We have lost the best-bred 
 woman in England ; ” and Charles Fox, with more true feeling, added, “ And the 
 kindest heart.” The other Duchess — Elizabeth (daughter of Lord Bristol, Bishop 
 of Derry), the devoted friend of Georgiana, whom she lived to succeed, ended a 
 somewhat chequered career at Rome in 1824. 
 
 She inspired with a romantic passion the historian Gibbon, who described her 
 as “ So alluring, that no man could withstand her ; and if she chose to beckon the 
 Lord Chancellor from the woolsack, in full sight of the world, he could not resist 
 obedience.” 
 
 This portrait was exhibited at the “ National Portrait Exhibition ” of 1867 ; 
 it has been engraved by Robert Graves, A.R.A. 
 
 Canvas, 1 ft. 1 1 in. by 1 ft. 3 in. 
 

ALTHORP. 
 
 A DAUGHTER OF RUBENS. 
 
 RUBENS. 
 
 HE maiden whom we see here was a daughter of the second wife of 
 Rubens. Isabella Brandt bore him but two children, both sons, who 
 live for ever in their portraits by their father in the Liechtenstein 
 Gallery at Vienna. His second wife, Helena Fourment, was the 
 mother of five children — three daughters and two sons. One of the daughters, 
 Constantina Albertina, was born after her father’s death. Which of the other two 
 — Clara Joanna, bora in 1632, or Isabella Helena, three years younger — it is that 
 is depicted in this work, we are unable to determine. Perhaps she is identical 
 with the child in that charming picture at Blenheim, in which the painter 
 and his wife are seen in a garden, with their infant daughter, whose juvenile 
 attempts at walking the mother directs with a leading-string. Judging from the 
 mother’s apparently youthful age, one would imagine that it is the elder of the two 
 daughters who is there represented. 
 
 Of the picture before us Mr. Hamerton thus speaks in the “ Portfolio — 
 “ One of the very few works of Rubens which were conceived from the first in grey, 
 and in which only just so much colour is introduced as the artist thought necessary 
 to avoid the appearance of ghastliness. In fact it is simply a grisaille, with carna- 
 tion for the flesh It is curious what an old-looking little woman the child 
 
 seems, and yet, at the same time, the painter has quite made us understand that 
 she is a child, though what would be popularly called ‘ an old-fashioned one.’ It 
 would be difficult to find a more charming picture in the whole of Earl Spencer’s 
 collection. The exuberance of Rubens is here tamed and tempered to a natural 
 ease and grace which remind us almost of Reynolds, though the style and costume 
 are different. Rubens seems to have painted this picture merely to amuse himself, 
 or to gratify his paternal feelings, and without any intention of artistic display.” 
 That “it would be difficult to find a more charming picture in the whole of 
 Earl Spencer’s collection" is an opinion we fully endorse. It was formerly in the 
 
A DAUGHTER OF RUBENS. 
 
 possession of Richardson, the painter, and thence passed through the collections 
 of General Skipton and Captain William Hamilton to the gallery at Althorp. 
 
 It has been etched by L. Flameng in the “ Portfolio.” A similar work, “attri- 
 buted to Rubens,” and styled a “ Portrait of a little Girl,” is in the Lille Gallery, in 
 the catalogue of which the following note occurs : “ This portrait has been attri- 
 buted to Van Thulden by several experts, while others consider it to be an English 
 copy of a painting by Rubens.” 
 
 Canvas, 2 ft. 4 in. by 1 ft. 9 in. 
 
HERTFORD HOUSE. 
 
 MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS. 
 
 School of JANET. 
 
 N this, one of the few original portraits of the ill-fated princess, Mary 
 Queen of Scots is seen wearing the usual widow’s weeds of the period — 
 a white head-dress, to which is attached a lace veil, tied under the chin 
 and falling down over the body. The dress is black. 
 
 Underneath the portrait one can readily read the inscription : marie stvart 
 
 REYNE DESCOSSE VEVFE DE FRANCOIS SECOND ROY DE FRANCE. 
 
 Panel, i ft. if in. by io in. 
 
BRIDGWATER HOUSE. 
 
 THE MADONNA WITH THE DIADEM. 
 
 After RAPHAEL. 
 
 ■ F the four Raphaels at Bridgwater House, the genuineness of this has 
 been most criticized. That the one at the Louvre, called “ La Vierge au 
 Voile,” is the finer there can be no doubt, nor that even in Raphael’s life- 
 time it was frequently copied. The picture before us is probably a replica 
 by one of the great painter’s pupils ; but with so many old copies of this exquisite 
 group, it is impossible to ascertain which is the actual creation of the artist, even 
 should the original still exist. 
 
 Waagen calls it “ an old and very good repetition of the composition, the best 
 known example of which is in the collection of the Louvre at Paris, under the name 
 of ‘ La Vierge au Linge.’” 
 
 Mrs. Jameson, after describing the picture, and remarking that “the ruins in 
 the background have been recognized as those in the Vigna Sacchetti, near St. Peter’s 
 at Rome,” adds that “this picture was formerly in the possession of Sir Joshua 
 Reynolds, but how or where he acquired it does not appear. It is an old and very 
 fine repetition of the original, painted by Raphael at Rome, about the year 1508 or 
 I 5 ° 9 ' soon after his return from Florence, and now in the Louvre.” 
 
 Mr. Ottley, in his Notes to the “ Stafford Gallery,” states that this picture was 
 in the Orleans Collection (there is, however, no engraving of it in the prints of that 
 collection), in which case it could not have belonged to Sir Joshua Reynolds ; so 
 that either Ottley or Mrs. Jameson was misled. 
 
 There are numerous engravings of this picture. That of it in the Stafford 
 Gallery is by Schiavonetti or Bromley. 
 
 Panel, 2 ft. 2 } in. by 1 ft. 7J in. 
 
STAFFORD HOUSE. 
 
 SANTA JUSTA. 
 
 MURILLO. 
 
 HE two half-length life-size portraits of “Sta. Justa” and “Sta. Rufina,” 
 in Murillo’s best and clearest tone of colour and refinement of feeling, 
 formed part of Marshal Soult’s collection, and were looted by that arch- 
 plunderer from Seville, possibly from its Chapter House, where Cean 
 Bermudez mentions that Murillo painted these saints for the Council Chamber in 
 the year 1668. 
 
 The following notice of these sister saints is taken from Mrs. Jameson’s “ Sacred 
 and Legendary Art — 
 
 Sta. Justa and Sta. Rufina were two Christian sisters dwelling in Seville. “They 
 were the daughters of a potter, and made a living by selling earthenware ; and 
 contenting themselves with the bare necessaries of life, they gave all the rest to the 
 poor. Certain women who lived near them, and who were worshippers of the goddess 
 Venus, came to their shop to buy vessels for their idolatrous sacrifice. The two 
 sisters answered that they had no vessels for such a purpose ; that their ware should 
 be used for the service of God, and not in the worship of stocks and stones. Upon 
 this the pagan women broke all the earthenware in their shop. Justa and Rufina 
 retaliated by falling upon the image of Venus, which they broke to pieces and flung 
 into the kennel. The populace immediately collected before their door, seized them, 
 and carried them before the prefect. On being accused of sacrilege, they boldly 
 avowed themselves to be Christians; and being condemned to the torture, Justa 
 expired on the rack, and Rufina was strangled. This came to pass in the year 304. 
 
 “ The two sisters are represented as Spanish girls, bearing the palm as martyrs, 
 and holding in their hands earthenware pots. Pictures of them are entirely confined 
 to the Seville school. They are generally represented with the Giralda (which is 
 supposed to be under their especial care and patronage) between them. According 
 to Mr. Ford, their great miracle was the preservation of this beautiful and far-famed 
 tower in a thunder-storm, in 1504. When Espartero bombarded Seville in 1843, 
 the people still believed that the Giralda was encompassed by invisible angels led by 
 Rufina and Justa, who turned aside every bomb. Murillo has frequently painted 
 
 them In the Spanish gallery of the Louvre, there are several representations 
 
 of them by ZTirbaran and others. Zurbaran represents them richly dressed ; but 
 Murillo has generally painted them as muchachas, Spanish girls of the lower class.” 
 
 Canvas, 3 ft. 1 in. by 2 ft. 2J in. 
 

THE GREAT 
 
 HISTORIC GALLERIES 
 
 ENGLAND 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 LORD RONALD GOWER, F.S.A 
 
 TRUSTEE OF THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY. 
 
 
( All rights reserved.) 
 
 CHISWICK PRESS: — C. WHITTINGHAM AND CO., TOOKS COURT, 
 CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 SUBJECT. 
 
 painter. 
 
 i. Soldiers Smoking 
 
 Tejiiers 
 
 2. The Water Mill 
 
 Hobbema 
 
 3. Miniatures ( frontispiece ) 
 
 
 Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire 
 
 Unknown. 
 
 A Lady . . . 
 
 Cosway. 
 
 Lady Caroline Howard .... 
 
 Cosway. 
 
 Lady Frances Howard .... 
 
 Unknown. 
 
 Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire 
 
 Unknown. 
 
 Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire 
 
 Unknown. 
 
 Margaret Georgiana, Countess Spencer 
 
 Unknown. 
 
 IN POSSESSION OF 
 
 . Mrs. Hope. 
 
 . Sir Richard Wallace , Bt. y K.C.B. 
 . Lord Lanerton. 
 
 4. Punchinello 
 
 
 Meissonier . 
 
 . Sir Richard Wallace, Bt., K.C.B. 
 
 5. Nelly O’Brien .... 
 
 
 Reynolds 
 
 . Sir Richard Wallace , Bt., K. C.B. 
 
 6. Miniatures 
 
 
 
 . Lord Lanerton. 
 
 Queen Elizabeth .... 
 
 
 
 
 James I 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 Anne of Denmark .... 
 
 
 
 
 Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel. 
 
 
 ■ All are attributed to Isaac Oliver. 
 
 Frances, Countess of Essex . 
 
 
 
 
 Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex . 
 
 
 
 
 George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland' 
 
 
 
 7. Lady Reading a Letter 
 
 
 Metsu . 
 
 . Mrs. Hope. 
 
 8. Portrait of a Gentleman .” 
 
 
 Van Dyck 
 
 . Duke of Sutherland , K.G. 
 
 9. Miniatures 
 
 
 
 . Lord Lanerton. 
 
 Louis XIV 
 
 
 Petitot. 
 
 
 Cardinal Mazarin .... 
 
 
 Unknown. 
 
 
 Louis XIV 
 
 
 Petitot. 
 
 
 Philippe, Due d’Orl£ans 
 
 
 Petitot. 
 
 
 Arthur, Earl of Essex . 
 
 
 Petitot. 
 
 
 Philippe, Due d’Orl^ans 
 
 
 Petitot. 
 
 
 A Man 
 
 
 Unknown. 
 
 
 10. Charles I. 
 
 11. Herdsman and Cows . 
 
 12. Miniatures 
 
 Henry Brandon 
 Lady Audley . 
 
 Charles Brandon . 
 
 Henry VIII. . 
 
 Queen Catherine Howard 
 Henry VIII. . 
 
 Attributed to Van Dyck Duke of Norfolk. 
 Cuyp .... Mrs. Hope. 
 
 . . . . . The Queen. 
 
 - Holbein. 
 
iv CONTENTS. 
 
 SUBJECT. PAINTER. 
 
 IN POSSESSION OF 
 
 13. Officer Writing Orders 
 
 Ter Borch . 
 
 Mrs. Hope. 
 
 14. Admiral de Ruijter . 
 
 15. Miniatures 
 
 James I. . 
 
 Prince Henry . 
 
 Queen Anne ..•••• 
 
 Hals . 
 
 Hoskins ( after Van Somer). 
 Isaac Oliver. 
 
 Isaac Oliver. 
 
 Earl Spencer , K.G. 
 The Queen. 
 
 16. A Village Fete 
 
 Steen .... 
 
 Mrs. Hope. 
 
 17. George Howard, Lord Morpeth 
 
 Reynolds 
 
 Lord Lanerton. 
 
 18. Miniatures 
 
 Henry VII 
 
 Henry VIII. ■ 
 
 Queen Jane Seymour . 
 
 Edward VI. . • • • * 
 
 ■ Nicholas Hilliard. 
 
 The Queen. 
 
 19. An Interior 
 
 De Hooch 
 
 Mrs. Hope. 
 
 20. Girl with Doves 
 
 Greuze .... 
 
 Sir Richard Wallace, Bt., K.C.B. 
 
 21. Miniatures 
 
 Francis, Dauphin of France . 
 
 Mary, Queen of Scots .... 
 Mary, Queen of Scots .... 
 
 Attributed to Clouet. 
 Attributed to Clouet. 
 Attributed to Isaac Oliver. 
 
 The Queen. 
 
 22. The Blue Boy 
 
 Gainsborough 
 
 Duke of Westminster , K.G. 
 
 23. The Stuart Miniatures 
 
 Mary Queen of Scots .... 
 James I. . • 
 
 Henry, Prince of Wales 
 
 Prince Charles 
 
 Lady Arabella Stuart . 
 
 Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia 
 
 24. Henry, Prince of Wales 
 Queen Elizabeth . 
 
 Charles II 
 
 James II. . 
 
 Duke of Simmern . 
 
 Henrietta Maria, Duchess of Orleans 
 
 Nicholas Hilliard. 
 Nicholas Hilliard. 
 Nicholas Hilliard. 
 Nicholas Hilliard. 
 Peter Oliver. 
 
 Peter Oliver. 
 
 Isaac Oliver. 
 Nicholas Hilliard. 
 Petitot. 
 
 Petitot. 
 
 Peter Oliver. 
 Probably French. 
 
 Rev. E. J. Edwards. 
 
 25. Madonna del Passeggio 
 
 Raphael 
 
 Earl of Ellesmere. 
 
 26. Interior of a Church. 
 
 Van Delen . 
 
 Mrs. Hope. 
 
 27. Fruit and Flowers 
 
 Van Huysum 
 
 Duke of Westminster , K.G. 
 
 28. Boy and Kite 
 
 Hogarth 
 
 Duke of Westminster , K.G. 
 
 29. Surrender of the Royal Prince 
 
 Van de Velde 
 
 Earl of Ellesmere. 
 
 30. Mrs. Powys 
 
 Romney 
 
 Earl Denbigh. 
 
 31. The three Maries at the Sepulchre 
 
 Mantegna 
 
 Lady Taunton. 
 
 32. Lady Southesk .... 
 
 Lely 
 
 J. M. Teesdale , Esq. 
 
 33. Reflections 
 
 Greuze . 
 
 Sir Richard Wallace, Bt., K.C.B. 
 
 34. Elizabeth, Countess Grosvenor 
 
 Lawrence 
 
 Duke of Sutherland, K.G. 
 
 35. Thomas Teesdale .... 
 
 36. Henry Howard, Earl of North 
 
 Hugh Robinson 
 
 J. M. Teesdale, Esq. 
 
 ampton 
 
 Van Somer . 
 
 Lord Lanerton. 
 
DEEPDENE. 
 
 SOLDIERS SMOKING. 
 
 TENIERS. 
 
 work and its companion, “Soldiers playing Backgammon,” both 
 dated 1647, are two characteristic works of Teniers. 
 
 Dr. Waagen says of them : “ These pictures, of the best time of 
 Teniers, have all the charm of that cool, harmonious union of colours, 
 and that light and spirited touch, in which he has no equal.” 
 
 Metal, 1 ft. 3 in. by 1 ft. 8 in. 
 
HERTFORD HOUSE. 
 
 THE WATER-MILL. 
 
 HOBBEMA. 
 
 HE following is Waagen’s criticism of the masterpiece by Hobbema. 
 “ A water-mill and house, lying on a piece of water of considerable 
 extent ; a wooden bridge over its outlet ; a group of trees, with figures 
 beneath their clear shade, and a sunlit meadow in the distance. 
 These are the simple features of this justly celebrated picture, which, in the 
 exquisite clearness of the middle ground, in the contrast between the deep 
 shadow under the trees and the bright meadow, and, finally, in the careful and 
 spirited execution, offers the utmost attraction to the lovers of Hobbema.” 
 
 “ The Water-Mill ” was formerly in the possession of Demoiselle Hoffmann. 
 At the King of Holland’s sale it was purchased by the late Marquis of Hertford 
 for 1,000 guineas. 
 
 On wood, 2 ft. 3 in. by 3 ft. 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 MINIATURES. 
 
 COSWAY AND OTHERS. 
 
 F these six charming miniatures, three are portraits of Georgiana, 
 Duchess of Devonshire — all by unknown artists. As a short account 
 of her life has been already given, with Gainsborough’s portrait of her 
 at Dover House, it is needless to repeat it here. 
 
 Lady Frances Howard, who was born in 1745, was the elder sister of 
 Frederick, fifth Earl of Carlisle. She was the eldest child of the fourth Earl by 
 his second marriage. Her mother was Isabella, daughter of William, fourth 
 Lord Byron. In 1768 Lady Frances married John Radcliffe, Esq., of Hitchin, 
 Hertfordshire. 
 
 Margaret Georgiana, Countess Spencer, was a daughter of the Right 
 Honourable Stephen Poyntz, of Midgham, Berkshire. In 1755 she married John 
 Spencer, who in 1761 was created Baron Spencer and Viscount Spencer of Althorp, 
 and four years later Viscount Althorp and Earl Spencer. She was the mother of 
 Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. Sir Joshua Reynolds painted the portrait of 
 Lady Spencer more than once ; she also sat to Gainsborough and to Pompeo 
 Batoni. She died in 1814. 
 
 Lady Caroline Howard, who became Lady Cawdor, has already appeared in 
 this work. The portrait we gave of her was that by Sir Joshua Reynolds, at 
 Castle Howard. 
 
* 
 
 
 
 
HERTFORD HOUSE. 
 
 PUNCHINELLO. 
 
 MEISSONIER. 
 
 N the back of a proof of this clever picture, M. Meissonier wrote, at our 
 request, the following note: “ Ce tableau a dtd peint par plaisanterie 
 sur une porte. La peinture a dtd coupd a la vente de la personne qui 
 possddait la porte. . Sir R. Wallace l’a achetde.” 
 
 In 1865, when the modern pictures belonging to M. Alexandre Dumas fils 
 were sold, the “Punchinello” fetched ^280. The Dumas sale is, in all pro- 
 bability, that referred to by M. Meissonier. 
 
■■■ 
 
HERTFORD HOUSE. 
 
 NELLY O’BRIEN. 
 
 REYNOLDS. 
 
 ROM Cotton’s catalogue of the portraits of Sir Joshua Reynolds, we 
 learn that the picture before us was painted in 1760, and exhibited 
 three years later. 
 
 Tom Taylor, in speaking of another portrait of Nelly O'Brien, inci- 
 dentally mentions it:— “This,” he says, "is not the loveliest portrait of her which 
 was painted in 1763, and is now in Lord Hertford’s Gallery. That exquisite picture 
 represents the frail beauty in full sunlight in an attitude of lazy enjoyment, sitting, 
 her hancis crossed, with a pet spaniel in her lap.” In this account, the year of exhi- 
 bition is evidently mistaken for that of execution; and the poodle is in error called 
 a spaniel. Further on, Taylor tells us that Nelly O'Brien, who was the rival of 
 Kitty Fisher, and frequently sat to Reynolds, “died in Park Street, Grosvenor 
 Square, in 1768, when the magnificent full-length {sic) portrait of her, now in Lord 
 Hertford’s collection, is said to have been sold at Christie’s for three guineas. I 
 am unable to verify this, nor do Christie’s books confirm it.” 
 
 This very vague and unsatisfactory account is all we have been able to glean 
 of the history of this celebrated painting. It was exhibited at Manchester in 1857. 
 It has been engraved by J. Watson, and by S. W. Reynolds, and in Graves’s “ Sir 
 Joshua Reynolds’ Works.” 
 
 A second portrait of Nelly O’Brien by Sir Joshua, dated on the frame 1773, is 
 in the possession of Viscountess Clifden (either this date or that of her death given 
 above must be wrong), and a third was formerly in the possession of the late Mr. 
 Wynn Ellis. It fetched ^609 at his sale. These two latter were both exhibited at 
 the National Portrait Exhibition of 1867. 
 

Queen Elizabeth. 
 
 James X. 
 
 Anne of Denmark. 
 
 Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel. 
 
 Frances, Countess of Essex. 
 
 Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. 
 
 George Clifford, Earl oe Cumberland. 
 
 [All are attributed to Isaac Oliver.] 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 MINIATURES. 
 
 Attributed to ISAAC OLIVER. 
 
 F Queen Elizabeth, James I., and his wife, Anne, daughter of Frederick 
 II., King of Denmark, nothing need be said. 
 
 Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, was the son of Thomas, Duke 
 of Norfolk, who was beheaded in 1572. Imprisoned on the charge of conspiring 
 with Mary Queen of Scots, the Earl was arraigned on a charge of high treason in 
 1589, found guilty, and condemned to death. Elizabeth, however, was content to 
 let him die in prison ; his death occurred in the thirty-ninth year of his age. From 
 an inscription on this miniature, it appears to have been painted in the last year of 
 his life. 
 
 Frances, the celebrated Countess of Essex, was the only daughter and heiress 
 of Sir Francis Walsingham. She married thrice: her first husband was Sir 
 Philip Sidney ; her second Robert Devereux, Earl of Jissex ; and her third the 
 Earl of Clanricarde. Essex’s disgrace is supposed to have been occasioned by his 
 marriage with this lady. By him she had one son, Robert, who distinguished 
 himself on the Parliamentary side in the Civil War. 
 
 In this curious miniature of the gallant Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, a 
 hand, probably intended for that of Queen Elizabeth, is extended to him from 
 above. The motto “Attici amoris ergo ” tends to corroborate this idea. The 
 Earl’s career is too well known to require any notice here. The miniature bears 
 the date 1588, and was consequently painted thirteen years before Essex’s tragic 
 death on Tower Hill. 
 
 George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland, was one of that remarkable band of 
 pirates who waged war on their own account in the New World. He made no less 
 than eleven voyages at his own expense, during which he did considerable damage 
 not only to the Spaniards, but also to his own estate. He distinguished himself 
 greatly at the invasion of the Spanish Armada. He died in 1605, aged forty-seven. 
 The miniature was painted in 1594. 
 
 | 
 
 P 
 

DEEPDENE. 
 
 LADY READING A LETTER. 
 
 METSU. 
 
 N an interior of a room we see a lady, seated at a window, reading a 
 letter : she wears a yellow bodice, trimmed with ermine, and a 
 pink skirt. On the right a maid draws back a green curtain from a 
 sea-piece, painted in monochrome, which hangs on the wall. On the 
 letter which the maid holds in her left hand one can read the inscription Metsu. 
 
 Waagen speaking of this and its companion, “ A Gentleman Waiting,” says : 
 “ In these pictures of Metsu’s later period, a cool harmony prevails. The light, 
 spirited execution, the exquisite keeping and clearness, render them extremely 
 pleasing.” 
 
 It was exhibited at the “ Old Masters ” Exhibition at Burlington House in 
 1881 ; and a writer in the “ Saturday Review,” in a notice of the Dutch masters, 
 thus speaks of it : “ This delightful little composition is interesting as showing the 
 extraordinary subtlety with which the best of these Dutchmen interpreted the social 
 life of their century. The grouping of these two women, the one intent upon her 
 letter, the other lingering in the room in the presence of her mistress, has an air of 
 unconsciousness which is truly wonderful. There is no deliberate attempt to invent 
 a subject or to depict a striking scene. The actors in this uneventful little drama 
 have evidently been unaware of the artist’s presence, and yet this chance glimpse 
 at the ways of their daily life tells us more, and tells it more simply, than a hundred 
 pictures with a portentous moral and a liberal display of cheap domestic pathos.” 
 
 In our opinion, this painting, although it bears the signature of Metsu, is by 
 the great but little known artist, Ver Meer, of Delft ; space, however, forbids us to 
 enter into details to justify this idea as to the authorship of this work. 
 
 Panel, I ft. 9 in. by 1 ft. 4 in. 
 
STAFFORD HOUSE. 
 
 PORTRAIT OF A GENTLEMAN. 
 
 VAN DYCK. 
 
 T is to be regretted that the name of the man who sat to Van Dyck for 
 this fine portrait is unknown. 
 
 Waagen, who called it the portrait of an astronomer or mathema- 
 tician of intellectual countenance, throws no light upon whom it 
 represents. He considers that “the manner in which the figure has risen from the 
 chair, as if some sudden circumstance had interrupted his studies, gives this 
 portrait all the interest of an historical picture,” and that the price paid for it (^440) 
 is by no means too much. From the careful finish and general appearance, we 
 should imagine this fine work to have been painted by Sir Antony alone, living in 
 Genoa, when he was not tempted by too great a number of commissions to allow 
 other hands than his to complete his paintings. 
 
 This picture is in admirable condition : it has been engraved by W. Vaillant 
 in mezzotint. 
 
Louis XIV. 
 By Petitot. 
 
 Cardinal Mazarin. 
 
 Louis XIV. 
 By Petitot. 
 
 Philippe, Due d’Orl£ans (died 1701). 
 By Petitot. 
 
 Arthur, Earl of Essex. 
 By Petitot. 
 
 Philippe, Due d’OrliLvns (died 1723). 
 By Petitot. 
 
 A Man — Unknown. 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 MINIATURES. 
 
 PETITOT. 
 
 the personages represented in these miniatures are too well known 
 history to need any biographic notice here. 
 
 Both portraits of Louis XIV. were taken in his youth ; that in 
 the centre at the top is set in a frame enriched with diamonds. 
 
 The miniature of Philippe, Due d’Orldans (1640-1701) — second son of Louis 
 XIII., and husband of his cousin Henrietta, daughter of Charles I. of England — 
 is set in a frame composed of white enamelled gold. 
 
 Arthur, Earl of Essex, suffered death in the Tower for his share in the 
 Rye House plot. 
 
 Philippe, Due d’OrHans, the son of the above-mentioned Duke, was born in 
 1674, and became Regent of France on the death of his uncle, Louis XIV. He 
 died in 1723, a few months after his regency had been declared at an end. 
 

ARUNDEL CASTLE. 
 
 CHARLES I. 
 
 Attributed to VAN DYCK. 
 
 IT has been well said that “ it would not be easy to find in the whole 
 range of portraiture another face so impressive in every way as that 
 presented in the Van Dyck portraits of Charles I. On the counte- 
 nance of mournful dignity there rests a shadow of trouble past and to 
 come, which, read by the light of history, seems like a revelation of the future.” 
 This, one of the most pleasing of the portraits of the ill-fated monarch, is in 
 all probability not the original work of Van Dyck ; as it is, or has been until 
 recently, the custom to attribute all portraits of Henry VIII. to Holbein, so almost 
 every likeness of Charles I. is said to be by Van Dyck. Indeed, he has been 
 credited with the authorship of no less than thirty-six. Although this picture 
 displays the great master’s mode of treatment, yet evidence of his own touch is 
 wanting ; and the work is probably a copy by a pupil. 
 
 In his right hand the King holds a baton : the left rests on a helmet, which 
 stands near a crown on a table. 
 
 It was exhibited at the “ Old Masters” Exhibition in 1880. 
 
 On canvas, 3 ft. 3J in. by 2 ft. 8 in. 
 
 
DEEPDENE. 
 
 HERDSMAN AND COWS. 
 
 CUYP. 
 
 EN says this work is “ of the best time of the master. Warm 
 brilliant in the colouring. The cows very happily relieved from 
 . other by their colour.” 
 
 It was exhibited at the “ Old Masters ” Exhibition at Burlington House in 
 1881, and Mr. Monkhouse, writing in the “Academy,” says that it “ unites the cool 
 luminosity of Teniers in its river and distance with all Cuyp’s richness and warmth 
 of colour in the beautiful group of blunt-nosed cows lying in the sunny grass.” 
 A writer in the “Athenaeum” thus concludes his criticism of it: “The grouping 
 of the cattle is unusually happy, even for a Cuyp, but the best elements of the 
 work are the soft and yet resplendent sky, the reflections in the water, and the 
 aerial gradation of the view.” It is signed, A cuyp. 
 
 There is a similar picture, by the same artist, in the Duke of Leinster's Col- 
 lection at Carton. 
 
 On panel, i ft. 7 j in. by 2 ft. 5 in. 
 
All are by Holbein. 
 
WINDSOR CASTLE. 
 
 MINIATURES. 
 
 HOLBEIN. 
 
 HE extracts concerning these miniatures, taken from Van der Doort’s 
 catalogue of the works of art belonging to Charles I., may not be without 
 interest. For further information respecting these and other minia- 
 tures in the Royal Collection we are indebted to the kindness of 
 Richard R. Holmes, Esq., F.S.A., Her Majesty’s Librarian at Windsor Castle. 
 
 We may mention that “ done upon the wrong light,” means that the portrait 
 is illuminated from the subject’s left, i.e. our right. 
 
 Henry VIII. “ No. 48. Item. Done upon the right light. Another and 
 lesser picture, as if it were a copy of the aforesaid picture, without a beard, also in 
 a black cap and a little golden chain about his neck, in an ash-coloured wrought 
 doublet in a furred cloak with crimson sleeves, his name and age written also on it 
 with golden letters. Being also one of the limned pictures which my Lord of 
 Suffolk (Theophilus Howard, second Earl of Suffolk, K.G., ob. 1640) gave to the 
 King (Charles I.).” On the back is written, probably by Van der Doort, “ In the 
 cubbord within y e Cabo 1 rooms at White hall 1638.” It is if inches in diameter. 
 
 Queen Catherine Howard. A replica of this is in the collection of the Duke 
 of Buccleuch. 
 
 Henry VIII. “No 46. Item. Done upon the wrong light. A second, in 
 like bigness, in a white turned ivory box, also King Henry VIII.’s picture with a 
 beard in a black cap and black ribbonds about his neck, in an ash-coloured tissue 
 suit in a furred cloak, his name and age in golden letters written on it. Being 
 also one of the number which were given to the King by Lord Suffolk.” On the 
 back is written, probably by Van der Doort, “ In the cubbord within y e Cabo' 
 rooms at White hall 1638.” It is 2 inches in diameter. 
 
 Lady Audley. Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Brian Tuke, Treasurer of the Chamber 
 to Henry VIII., was wife of George Touchet, Lord Audley, who died in 1559 or 
 1560. She had by him two sons — Henry, who inherited his father’s title and estates, 
 and John.- A portrait of her, in red chalk, is among the drawings by Holbein 
 at Windsor Castle. > 
 
 Henry, eldest son of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, by his fourth wife 
 Catherine, daughter of Lord Willoughby d’Eresby, was born in 1530, and died in 
 1551. “No. 65. Item. Another fellow piece of the same Duke of Brandon’s 
 children, in a black cap and habit with green sleeves, leaning with his left arm upon 
 the table, bending his head towards his left shoulder — on the table written his age, 
 and the year of our Lord. Done upon the wrong light." 2 inches in diameter. 
 
 Charles, second son of the Duke of Suffolk, was born in 1537, and died in 
 1551. “ No. 64. Item, Done upon the wrong light. Upon a round card, one of 
 
 the Duke of Brandon’s children, being in a purple habit laced with red velvet lace, 
 with both his hands before him.” 
 
 These two last portraits were “ done by Hans Holbein, given to the King by 
 Sir H. Vane,” and both are engraved in Chamberlaine’s “ Imitations of Original 
 Drawings by Hans Holbein,” 1792. 
 

DEEPDENE. 
 
 OFFICER WRITING ORDERS. 
 
 TER BORCH. 
 
 I suggestion has frequently been made by writers on art, that Ter Borch 
 -in his several pictures of an officer writing a letter, for which a trum- 
 :ter waits ; a lady reading a note just received from the trumpeter ; and 
 e well-known “ Paternal Advice ” — wished to convey the idea of a con- 
 nected love-story. But it seems more probable that, when painting, he was only in- 
 tent on representing with surprising truth the gloss of the lady’s inevitable white 
 satin dress, the gleam on the bright armour of the officer, or the texture of the buff 
 coat of the trumpeter ; and troubled his head very little about the inner meaning of 
 his pictures. 
 
 The Dresden Gallery possesses a picture by Ter Borch, similar to this in subject, 
 but slightly different in treatment : both the officer and the trumpeter in the former 
 seem younger men than those in the latter ; their costumes, however, are almost 
 identical. In the Dresden picture, the trumpeter, who wears his hat on his head, has 
 his face turned towards us : the officer writes at a plain wooden table, and conse- 
 quently the fine piece of colour of the table-cloth in the Deepdene picture is wanting. 
 The dog is also absent ; and the officer is seated to our left, and the trumpeter to 
 our right. 
 
 The Deepdene picture was exhibited at the British Institution in 1851, and 
 again at the “ Old Masters ” at Burlington House, in 1881. 
 
 On canvas, 1 ft. 9} in. by 1 ft. 4 t in. 
 
■■ 
 
ALTHORP. 
 
 ADMIRAL DE RUIJTER. 
 
 FRANS HALS. 
 
 E have been able to glean very little of the history of this bold and 
 life-like portrait of one of Holland’s greatest sailors. It was purchased 
 by the late Earl Spencer at Bristol ; and was exhibited at the Man- 
 chester Exhibition in 1857, and again recently, with many others of 
 the gems of the Althorp Gallery, at the South Kensington Museum. 
 
 It has been etched by C. P. Slocombe. 
 
 The life of Michiel Adriaansz de Ruijter is almost inseparably connected with 
 the history of our own country. He was born at Flushing in 1607, and adopted 
 the maiden name (De Ruijter) of his mother, who was of nobler descent than her 
 husband. He entered the navy as a cabin-boy and rose by successive stages to 
 become Admiral of the Dutch Fleet, at a time when Holland had an equal claim 
 with England to the proud title of the Monarch of the Seas. 
 
 De Ruijter first served in the West Indies : then in the Mediterranean against 
 the Barbary pirates. In 1652 he first fought under Van Tromp and De Witte 
 against England, whose ships he defeated in the following year. He was then sent 
 to Africa to re-capture the Dutch forts which had been taken by the English. 
 Subsequently he assisted the Danish to defeat the Swedes, and received from the 
 King of Denmark a title and pension. 
 
 In 1665 he, with Van Tromp, a son of his former chief, was again matched 
 against England. Two fights ensued : one was undecisive ; in the second, which 
 took place a few weeks later, De Ruijter was defeated. But in 1667, as is but too 
 well known, he sailed up the Thames, destroyed our shipping, and endangered to 
 no slight extent the safety of the English capital. 
 
 In 1671 he commanded the fleet which fought against France and England : 
 the battle of Southwold Bay has, like many another, been claimed as a victory by 
 both sides. Three years later, peace was made between England and Holland ; 
 and France was left to fight De Ruijter alone. In 1675, off Sicily, Duchesne 
 defeated the Dutch admiral, who had his legs shattered by a cannon ball. De 
 Ruijter retreated to Syracuse, and died there of his wounds on the 29th of April, 
 1676. 
 
WINDSOR CASTLE. 
 
 MINIATURES- 
 
 ISAAC OLIVER and HOSKINS. 
 
 HE following extracts are from Van der Doort’s catalogue : — 
 
 James I. “Item. Done tipon the wrong light. The fourth pic- 
 ture, being King James VI., upon an oval lavender coloured card, in a 
 laced ruff, and a black habit, with a corslet about his neck. Copied by Hoskins, 
 after the principal, being in the Bearstake gallery, done by Paul Van Somer. 
 Length 2-J in., breadth ij in.” 
 
 Prince Henry Frederick, eldest son of James I., was born at Stirling Castle in 
 1594, and died in 1612. 
 
 “ Imprimis. Done upon the right light. The biggest limned picture that 
 was made of Prince Henry, being limned in a set laced ruff and gilded armour and 
 a landskip, wherein are some soldiers and tents, in a square frame with a shutting 
 glass over it. Done by Isaac Oliver. Length 5J in., breadth 4 in.” There seems 
 to have been a replica of this picture in the King’s Collection. 
 
 Queen Ann, second daughter of Frederick II. of Denmark, and wife of James I. 
 “ Item. Done upon the right light. The fifth picture being Queen Ann of 
 famous memory, of the same bigness, upon a red oval card in a white hair dressing, 
 in a blew habit adorned with pearls, and a picture-box at her left breast. Done by 
 Isaac Oliver, after the life. Length 2 in., breadth ij in.” 
 

DEEPDENE. 
 
 A VILLAGE FETE. 
 
 JAN STEEN. 
 
 ■ F all the Dutch painters, Steen is the most good-naturedly humorous, 
 and none of his pictures displays better than this his sense and appre- 
 ciation of fun and frolic. The recent exhibition of Old Masters (1881) 
 has perhaps done more than anything to make English people familiar 
 with Steen. That exhibition contained four pictures by him, all masterpieces. 
 Mr. Butler contributed “ The Painter, his Wife and Children and the other three 
 were from Deepdene — “ A Christening,” “ A Lady offering wine to a Gentleman,” 
 and the “ Village FSte.” This last work, by its brilliant colouring, has earned for 
 the artist the title of the “ Dutch Carpaccio,” as his evident sense of humour has 
 caused him to be called the “ Dutch Hogarth ” — perhaps the apter title of the two. 
 
 A painting, similar in all respects to the picture before us, is in the possession 
 of M. Schneider, whose collection, like that at Deepdene, is especially rich in 
 works by the Dutch masters. 
 
 “ A Village Fete” is signed and dated “ J. Steen (the J and S connected) 
 1663.” 
 
 On canvas, 3 ft. 3 in. by 4 ft. 7 in. 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 GEORGE HOWARD, LORD MORPETH. 
 
 REYNOLDS. 
 
 R Joshua’s tricks and experiments are sadly apparent in the cracked 
 and blistered surface of this graceful portrait. 
 
 Lord Morpeth was the eldest son of the fifth Earl of Carlisle by 
 Lady Caroline Gower. Born in 1773, he succeeded as sixth Earl of 
 Carlisle in 1825. 
 
 He married in 1801 Georgiana, eldest daughter of William, fifth Duke of 
 Devonshire. He died in October, 1848. 
 
 This portrait has been engraved both in line and mezzotint, by T. Trotter in 
 1787, a year after it was painted. 
 
 Canvas, 2 ft. 6 in. by 2 ft. 1 in. 
 

 [All are by Nicholas Hilliard.] 
 
WINDSOR CASTLE. 
 
 MINIATURES. 
 
 NICHOLAS HILLIARD. 
 
 HE following account of these miniatures is from Van der Doort’s 
 catalogue of Charles I.’s collection. 
 
 “ Here followeth a Golden Jewel, where to the appendant part 
 hangeth four pictures in several cases one over another, which said jewel has also 
 besides the four pictures, at the top on the outside enamelled, the battle of Bosworth- 
 field, between King Henry VII. and King Richard III. (alias Crookbacked Richard). 
 On the other side is the red and white roses joined together ; done also in enamel 
 work. 
 
 “ Imprimis. Done upon the right light. The picture of King Henry VII. in a 
 black cap and scarf, with a red garment, and a red rose in his right hand. Done by 
 Nicholas Hilliard. 
 
 “Item. Done upon the wrong light. Being King Henry VIII. in ablack 
 cap and white feather, and a little ruff, in a silver tissue doublet, with a collar 
 about his shoulders. Done by the old Nich. Hilliard. 
 
 “ Item. The third, being King Edward VI. in a black cap and white feather, 
 and a little ruff, in a black habit with a collar about his neck ; done upon the right 
 light. Done by the old Nich. Hilliard. 
 
 “ Item. Done upon the wrong light. The fourth and last picture [that of 
 Jane Seymour], in the said Jewel of Queen Mary, in ab lack and red hair dressing, 
 and carnation habit, and two strings of pearls about her neck. 
 
 “These are the four specified pictures which are in the jewel. Done by 
 the old Nich. Hilliard.” 
 
 Horace Walpole in his own copy of Van der Doort’s catalogue (now in the 
 Royal Library) adds this note, “ The above jewel and pictures were done by old 
 Hilliard, and given to the King by young Hilliard by the deceased Earl of 
 Pembroke’s means.” 
 
DEEPDENE. 
 
 AN INTERIOR. 
 
 DE HOOCH. 
 
 iN tells us that “ this picture, before it was spoiled by cleaning, 
 t have had all the excellences of the master, the brightest sunshine, 
 the most cheerful harmony and clearness,” and he further states 
 his “ heart bled at this sight ! ” 
 
 This painting, which is catalogued in Smith’s work as “ The Social Party,” was 
 formerly in the Braamkamp Collection, at the sale of which, in 1771, it realized 
 ^38. It is signed p. d. h. 
 
 It was exhibited with many others of the treasures of Deepdene at the “ Old 
 Masters” of 1881 ; and a writer in the “Times,” after speaking highly of two 
 others of his works, lent by the Queen and the Earl of Strafford, goes on to say of 
 this picture : — “ De Hooghe is such a magician, that it is difficult to form com- 
 parisons between his enchantments ; yet we think that the other ‘ Interior ’ (126), 
 had it not been so ill-treated, might have been rated most highly, looking to the 
 wonderful naturalness of the figures, and the splendour and breadth of the 
 colouring.” 
 
 On canvas, 2 ft. 2 \ in. by 1 ft. 1 1 in. 
 


WINDSOR CASTLE. 
 
 MINIATURES. 
 
 CLOUET and ISAAC OLIVER. 
 
 'HE following extracts are from Van der Doort’s catalogue 
 
 “ Item. In the second and last bigger square and high frame . . 
 
 . wherein are left two places empty for two more pictures to come there, 
 
 being as yet unfinished, of his Majesty’s progenitors. 
 
 Imprimis. Done upon the right light. Upon a round blew card grounc 
 with an isinglass over it, the picture of the Dauphin son of France, in a black car 
 and a white feather, in a black habit lined with white fur, adorned with gold 
 which said Dauphin was the first husband to Queen Mary of Scotland. Inch * 
 Supposed to be done by Jennet, a French limner; now at Kensington: hangs in 
 the Queens [Queen Caroline, wife of George II.] closet.” 
 
 Item. Done upon the right light. The second picture of Queen Mary of 
 Scotland upon a blew grounded square card, dressed in her hair, in a carnation 
 habit laced with small gold lace, and a string of pearls about her neck, in a little 
 plain falling band, she putting on her second finger her wedding ring, 
 to be done by the said Jennet. Length 3 inches. Breadth 2 inches.” 
 
 Mary Queen of Scots. A fine miniature, probably by Isaac Oliver 
 Charles I. 
 
 Supposed 
 Done for 
 

 » 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
GROSVENOR HOUSE. 
 
 THE BLUE BOY. 
 
 GAINSBOROUGH. 
 
 HIS work, painted when Gainsborough was at the height of his fame, 
 may fairly be considered one of his greatest successes in portraiture. 
 It has been too highly praised by eminent critics to need further 
 encomium at our hands. It has always been known as the “ Blue 
 Boy,” from the time when it was first executed, in order, it is said, to refute 
 Reynolds’s expressed opinion that light colours, such as blue, grey, or green, should 
 not play a prominent part in a picture. It has been thought, however, that a love 
 for a preponderance of light tones was half inherent in Gainsborough, and half 
 acquired from the study of his favourite Van Dyck, a painter who was ever in 
 his mind, even up to the time of his death. The “ Blue Boy ” is the portrait of 
 Master Buthall. After the death of Mr. Buthall, the picture was bought by Mr. 
 Nesbit ; it subsequently came into the possession of John Hoppner, R.A., who sold 
 it to the first Earl Grosvenor. 
 
 It was exhibited at the British Institution in 1814, and again in 1834 ; at the 
 Manchester Art Treasures in 1857; at the International Exhibition in 1862; and 
 at the “ Old Masters,” at Burlington House, in 1870. 
 
 It has been etched by C. Waltner, in 1880; and by P. Rajon, in 1881, as a 
 pendant to the portrait of Mrs. Graham at Edinburgh ; and it has been engraved 
 in line by Robert Graves, A.R.A., in 1868. 
 
 From the frequency of its appearance on the walls of exhibitions as well as 
 from the reproductions of it which have been made, the “ Blue Boy ” is familiar 
 to most Englishmen. 
 
 A similar picture, which was exhibited by its then owner, Mr. John Sewell, 
 in the rooms of the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1867, and several times since 
 elsewhere in London, has been asserted by some to be the original work : good 
 judges, on the other hand, affirm that it is merely a copy by the artist’s nephew, 
 Gainsborough Dupont. Fierce controversies have been carried on in connection 
 with the subject ; there is but little doubt, however, that the Duke of Westminster 
 owns the picture which Gainsborough originally painted. 
 
 A third “ Blue Boy,” of smaller size, is in the possession of Mrs. Freake ; it 
 was exhibited at the Richmond Exhibition in 1881. This work also has its sup- 
 porters in its claims to authenticity. 
 
 Canvas, 5 ft. 9| in. by 4 ft. oj in. 
 
TRENTHAM VICARAGE. 
 
 THE STUART MINIATURES. 
 
 NICHOLAS HILLIARD, PETER OLIVER, ISAAC OLIVER and PETITOT. 
 
 following is a short account of the way in which these miniatures, 
 m. |Ipl| once in the Royal Collection, came into the hands of Mr. Edwards, the 
 Vm* |pS& father of their present owner, the Reverend E. J. Edwards. 
 
 “ About the year 1801, General came to England to nego- 
 
 tiate a treaty of peace with this nation : there was some secret our Government 
 wished to gain private information of, and which could only be obtained 
 through a private French family (name forgotten). Mr. Edwards (the father of 
 the Rev. E. J. Edwards) was breakfasting with Lord Spencer, then First Lord 
 of the Admiralty, when this was mentioned. Mr. Edwards was personally 
 acquainted with this family, and told Lord Spencer he could learn anything from 
 them that he was desirous to know. Shortly after, Lord Spencer asked Mr. 
 Edwards to go over to Paris (promising him a safe conduct) to ascertain the par- 
 ticulars that the Government required. Having satisfactorily performed the busi- 
 ness, he returned, and thought no more of it till, six weeks after, he received a letter 
 enclosing a draft from the Treasury for ^500. Not understanding why this was 
 presented to him, he took it to Lord Spencer, who said it was a remuneration from 
 Government for transacting the business in Paris, and that it was the usual pay- 
 ment for such a mission. Mr. Edwards, not having anything to do with diplomacy, 
 declined accepting it, having undertaken the negotiation as an act of private friend- 
 ship to Lord Spencer. 
 
 “ Shortly after, Lord Spencer told Mr. Edwards that he thought he had some- 
 thing to offer him which he could not withstand though he refused the money, for 
 he had heard from agents of the French Government that some of the neglected 
 treasures of the Jewel-Office in Paris were to be sent to this country. So little was' 
 known of their value that these Stuart miniatures lay disregarded among the old 
 chains and ornaments of this collection, which was accompanied with a written 
 document, stating that James II. had brought them over from England, and had 
 deposited them with Louis XIV. when he went to St. Germains, intending to 
 reclaim them on his return.” 
 
 The miniatures were accepted by Mr. Edwards ; and we can but regret that 
 this important document was not preserved with them. 
 
II. 
 
 Mary, Queen of Scots. 
 By Nicholas Hilliard. 
 
 III. 
 
 James I. 
 
 By Nicholas Hilliard. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Henry, Prince of Wales. 
 By Nicholas Hilliard. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Prince Charles. 
 By Nicholas Hilliard. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Lady Arabella Stuart. 
 By Peter Oliver. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia. 
 By Peter Oliver. 
 
THE STUART MINIATURES. 
 
 The following is a description of these ten miniatures which form the Stuart 
 collection. Mr. Patrick Fraser Tytler drew up this list, though not in the present 
 order. 
 
 I. Queen Elizabeth. By Nicholas Hilliard. 
 
 Nearly full-face, and, as usual, with little shade. The hair is bright yellow ; she 
 wears an aigrette of white feathers, a large ruff of great richness, and a black gown, 
 the upper part of open lace-work, thickly fringed with pearls. On her left side 
 hangs what appears to be a locket, with a harp and anchor on the outside, and a 
 pearl pendant, attached to a row of pearls by a yellow string. Mr. Tytler thinks 
 that this locket or case contains Essex’s portrait. She also wears a locket round 
 her neck. Bright blue background. A similar miniature is at Castle Howard. 
 
 II. Mary, Queen of Scots. By Nicholas Hilliard. 
 
 This most interesting miniature much resembles the Morton portrait of this 
 Queen : the cap and ruff are the same. The hair, closely curled, is light auburn ; 
 the eyes are brown. The ample forehead, and well shaped nose and chin are very 
 distinct ; although, as in Queen Elizabeth’s miniature, there is scarcely any shade 
 on the face. The lips are thinner than usual in Queen Mary’s portraits. Around 
 her neck hangs, in three turns, a jet necklace : from the second coil is suspended 
 an anagram. Outside this necklace hangs another black necklace, which is 
 studded with what appear to be little lumps of coral, and which, Mr. Tytler supposes, 
 represent the Crown of Thorns “untwisted, full of red thorns and it is probably 
 from this necklace that the gold cross with the figure of Our Saviour in ivory hangs. 
 The dress is black : the background is deep blue. 
 
 III. James I. By Nicholas Hilliard. 
 
 The uncouth monarch wears far back on his head a black hat, with a large 
 cross-shaped brooch, attached to the broad brim on the left side, which appears 
 formed of diamonds or crystals set in gold. An elaborate laced collar beneath which 
 hangs the blue ribbon (a narrow band) of the Garter, over a pale pink dress 
 ornamented with gold ; light brown hair, and faint moustache and beard. Blue 
 background. This miniature is inscribed “ Ex dono G. F. Leckie,” and did not 
 form part of the set from the cabinet of Louis XVI. 
 
 IV. Lady Arabella Stuart. By Peter Oliver. 
 
 She was only child of Charles Stewart, Earl of Lennox, uncle to James I., and 
 great-grandson of Henry VII. She was born in 1578, and died in the Tower in 
 1615. 
 
 She was “a martyr to the political jealousy of James I. : ” and lies buried in 
 the same vault at Westminster as Queen Mary of Scotland. On her mother’s side 
 she was descended from the Cavendish family. 
 
 A miniature of superb finish, and in admirable preservation. The hair, which 
 is abundant, falls in graceful waves over her shoulders. The only ornaments are 
 earrings of white and gold, and a necklace to match. The dress is elaborately 
 
I. 
 
 V. 
 
 Henry, Prince of Wales. 
 By Isaac Oliver. 
 
 Queen Elizabeth. 
 By Nicholas Hilliard. 
 
 XI. 
 
 Charles II. 
 By Petitot. 
 
 XII. 
 
 James II. 
 By Petitot. 
 
 IX. x - 
 
 Duke of Simmern. Henrietta Maria, Duchess of Orleans. 
 
 By Peter Oliver. Probably French. 
 
THE STUART MINIATURES. 
 
 ornamented with patterns of flowers and gold sprays. Over her left shoulder hangs 
 a brilliant scarf of crimson. The face is intensely pale, and the blue veins can 
 be distinctly seen. The eyes are blue, and the lids red as if with tears. Back- 
 ground blue. A repetition of this miniature is at Castle Howard. 
 
 V. Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, eldest son of James I. Born on the 
 19th of February, 1594; died on the 6th of November, 1612. 
 
 A superb miniature by Isaac Oliver, whose initial is seen on the left side in- 
 scribed on the crimson curtain that forms the background. The young Prince’s 
 features recall those of Charles I. — the same well-shaped forehead and abun- 
 dant brown hair. The nose is coarser, but well-shaped ; large blue eyes and well- 
 opened. Underneath a richly-laced ruff, is a superb suit of grey armour encrusted 
 with gold ; over this appears the ribbon of the Garter. Apparently in his seven- 
 teenth year. 
 
 VI. Prince Henry. (In same frame with VII.) 
 
 Younger than in the former — he appears about twelve : he wears a somewhat 
 similar cuirass ; it has scarlet round the shoulder-pieces and along the corselet. 
 Blue background. 
 
 VII. Prince Charles. Probably in his sixth year. 
 
 This is the earliest portrait we know of Charles I. He is a bright intelligent 
 looking child with auburn hair, which is brushed up into a top-knot on the forehead. 
 He wears a rich ruff, and white dress fringed with silver stripes. The background 
 is a blue curtain with gold embroidery down it. By N. Hilliard. 
 
 Both these faces (Nos. VI. and VII.) are somewhat faded. 
 
 VIII. Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia. By Peter Oliver, whose initials are 
 seen on the left. 
 
 Daughter of James I., born 1596; married, 1613, Frederickof Bavaria, afterwards 
 elected King of Bohemia. Her youngest daughter was the wife of George, Elector 
 of Brunswick, who, in consequence of this marriage, became King of England. 
 
 A very plain-faced lady ; the form of the face strongly resembles her eldest 
 brother, Prince Henry ; but her nose, which is long, is less curved. The eyes are 
 blue and vacant : the hair is without any ornament. The earrings are similar to 
 those worn by Lady Arabella Stuart. 
 
 She wears a broad ruff round her neck and a transparent fichu over her 
 shoulders, and she is considerably cidcolleU. In the centre of the dress and on the 
 shoulders are rose-coloured bows, with a pearl set in each : these pearls correspond 
 with a row that lines the upper portion of her dress. Blue background. 
 
 IX. Lewis Philip. Brother to Frederick V., Elector Palatine, afterwards 
 King of Bohemia. He was Duke of Simmern (Dux Simerensis) during Charles 
 Louis’s minority. Lewis administered the affairs of the Palatinate up to the battle 
 of Nordlingen, in which the Swedes were defeated ; when Mannheim fell again into 
 the hands of the Austrians. 
 
THE STUART MINIATURES. 
 
 This is one of the finest, if not the finest, of the set by Peter Oliver, whose 
 initials are on the right of the miniature. Not a distinguished, but a good-natured 
 looking, brown-eyed youth, with thick curly brown hair ; a love-lock falls along the 
 ruff, the laced ends of which are turned down towards the black dress richly 
 embroidered. Blue background. 
 
 X. ' Henrietta Maria, Duchess of Orleans. 
 
 Daughter of Charles I. Married in 1661, Philip, Duke of Orleans, brother of 
 Louis XIV. Died in 1670 leaving one son and two daughters. From one of the 
 latter is descended the present King of Italy. 
 
 This miniature has somewhat suffered, and has been rubbed in places. The 
 Duchess’s rich brown hair, which falls in Lely-shaped locks over her white shoulders, 
 is well set off by a head-dress of scarlet feathers, which, covering the back and top of 
 the head, descend to the shoulder. 
 
 This Indian-like fashion is continued in a cloak, to which yellow, red and blue 
 feathers are attached : the cloak is fastened to the left shoulder by a sapphire 
 brooch, from which hangs a large pear-shaped pearl. Beneath this is a white dress 
 fringed along the breast with diamonds : a single string of pearls encircles the neck. 
 Background pale blue. On the right of the miniature is written By Nhach, 1649. 
 
 XI. (In same frame with XII.) Charles II. (by Petitot), whose face is here 
 quite repulsive, is of the same size as a florin, i.e. the frame included, for a shilling 
 more than covers the painting : in it he appears a most dissipated and w«e-looking 
 king, in a dark wig and “ Steinkirk collar.” On the back is written in pencil by 
 Mr. Edwards (in 1801), “ Charles II., bought at Paris, 1784.” 
 
 XII. James II. ’s portrait is an enamel by Petitot, full face, in a long flowing, 
 light brown wig, like those painted by Lely. On the back is written in pencil by 
 Mr. Edwards (in 1801), “James II. by Petitot, given by Mr. Byers.” 
 
 These two (Nos. XI. and XII.) do not belong to the other set, but were given 
 to Mr. Edwards by Mr. Byers, the English banker in Rome, early in the century. 
 
 This set of miniatures is mounted in small metal frames, on boards covered 
 with white silk. The portraits of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary, the Duke of 
 Simmern, the Queen of Bohemia, and Prince Henry are set in borders of parch- 
 ment with gilt mounts, and the names of the respective individuals inscribed in 
 gilt letters. The others are set on the silk boards in narrow bronze-gilt frames. 
 
 We imagine they were thus framed by Mr. Edwards : but the parchment 
 settings are probably of the time of James II. 
 
BRIDGWATER HOUSE. 
 
 MADONNA DEL PASSEGGIO. 
 
 RAPHAEL. 
 
 cannot do better than quote Mrs. Jameson’s excellent account of this 
 ucture, from her “ Companion to the most celebrated Private Galleries 
 if Art.” 
 
 “ This beautiful composition of Raphael must have early attained 
 great reputation, for there are few of his pictures of which so great a number of 
 ancient copies exist. M. Passavant and Dr. Waagen doubt whether this 
 identical picture was painted by Raphael’s own hand, and ascribe the execution, 
 which differs somewhat from Raphael’s peculiar manner, to Giovanni Penni (II 
 Fattore), one of his most distinguished pupils. These critical doubts can detract 
 nothing from the value of the picture, as it is the finest of the subject now known 
 to exist, nor from the impression produced by the exquisite grace and saintly 
 loveliness of this divine group. ‘The eager, child-like worship of the young 
 St. John ; the dignified, yet still child-like and tender sweetness of Christ ; the soft 
 maternal air of the Virgin bending over them, noble, matronly, and elegant, can 
 hardly be surpassed.’ The figure appears to me the most noble and dignified of all 
 Raphael’s Virgins. With the exception of some inconsiderable chips in the wood, 
 which have been filled up with paint, the picture is in most excellent preservation. 
 Its traditional biography is interesting. It was given by one of the Dukes of 
 Urbino to Philip II., King of Spain, and by him to the Emperor Rudolph II., a 
 great fancier of pictures in his time. After the capture of Prague, Gustavus 
 Adolphus carried off this and many other valuable pictures and works of art to 
 Sweden. His daughter Christina inherited it, and took it with her to Italy ; she 
 had by this time acquired a taste for art, and this picture, while in her possession, 
 and for some time afterwards, was defended by a glass. [It would be well were 
 this protection to be renewed, not only for this and the other Raphaels, but for 
 many of the other priceless paintings, both of the Italian and Dutch schools, in this 
 splendid collection.] She bequeathed it to her favourite, Azzolini, and subsequently 
 it was purchased, with the rest of her gallery, by Don Livio Odescalchi, Duke of 
 Bracciano. In this collection Richardson saw it in 1721. Soon after this period, 
 it was bought, with many others from the same collection, by the Regent Duke of 
 Orleans. On the arrival of the Orleans Gallery in England, it fell to the share of 
 the Duke of Bridgewater, and was valued at ^3,000. 
 
 “ Repetitions of this lovely composition exist in many galleries. In the Museum 
 at Naples ; in the possession of Carlo Sanquirico, at Milan ; at Rome, in the 
 Palazzo Albani ; at Citerna, in the church of the Franciscans ; in the Lichtenstein 
 Gallery at Vienna; in the possession of Lord Scarsdale.” 
 
 It has been engraved by Larmessin, for the “ Crozat Gallery ; ” by Pesne, in 
 reverse ; by Guttenberg, for the “ Orleans Gallery ; ” by Bromley in the “ Stafford 
 Gallery,” and by Legrand, Heath, Tomkins, and Pietro Anderloni. 
 
 Panel, 2 ft. 9 in., by 1 ft. 1 1 in. 
 
* 
 
DEEPDENE. 
 
 INTERIOR OF A CHURCH. 
 
 VAN DELEN. 
 
 F the history of this picture we have been able to glean nothing. It was 
 among the Deepdene treasures, which were exhibited at the South 
 Kensington Museum in 1869, but it did not accompany its fellows to 
 the "Old Masters,” in 1881. 
 
 In Crowe’s edition of Kugler’s “ Handbook,” we read of Van Delen : — “ His 
 perspective, both linear and aerial, was well understood, and his works show a 
 generally clear and silvery tone, and a skilful use of the brush. His over decision, 
 
 however, in the indication of separate forms, recalls the earlier period One 
 
 of the best specimens of his hand in England, is the Interior of a Church, in Mr. 
 H. T. Hope’s collection. This is particularly powerful in tone for him.” 
 
 Van Delen is a painter whose works are rarely met with in England : there is 
 but one, “ A Renaissance Palace,” in the National Gallery, and one in the Dulwich 
 Gallery, “The Entrance of a Palace,” signed and dated, D. v. Delen, 1654. A 
 third, a superb work, is at Chiswick House. 
 
 Dirk van Delen (usually miscalled Van Deelen) was born at Heusden, probably 
 in 1607. By mistake, he is generally said to have been a pupil of Frans Hals. 
 He painted at Haarlem, Delft, and Antwerp, but lived principally at Arnemuyden, 
 where he served as .burgomaster towards the close of his life. He died in 1673 (?) 
 History has handed down to us the names of his three wives. 
 
 The figures in his pictures were usually added by Le Due, Dirk Hals, Pieter 
 Codde, Van Herp, Anthonis Palamedesz, Philips Wouwerman, and Boeyermans. 
 
 Which of the above, if any, was the author of the figures in the picture 
 before us, we are unable to say. It is signed Dirk van Delen fecit 1629, and is 
 therefore one of this master’s earliest works. 
 
 Metal, 1 foot i| in. long by 9} in. high. 
 
on 
 

GROSVENOR HOUSE. 
 
 BOY WITH A KITE. 
 
 9 
 
 HOGARTH. 
 
 HIS interesting work by Hogarth, owing to its never having been 
 engraved, is but little known ; it is one of the original collection of 
 pictures commenced by Richard, Earl Grosvenor, in the last century : 
 it was exhibited at the British Gallery in 1817. 
 
 It is thus described by J. B. Nichols in his “Anecdotes of William 
 Hogarth — 
 
 “ B °y a Paper Kite. The Marquess of Westminster has a small 
 painting, with a boy’s kite falling, and becoming entangled with furze. The boy 
 arrives just as a crow is tearing it in pieces. The expression in his face is worthy 
 of Hogarth.” And the same author, in his “ Genuine Works of William Hogarth,” 
 expresses the opinion that it “ well deserves to be engraved.” 
 
 With the exception of Mrs. Jameson, who calls it “a small picture full of 
 lively and comic expression without any tincture of caricature,” Nichols is, so far 
 as we know, the only author who mentions this work. 
 
 Canvas, 1 ft. 2 in. by 1 1| in. 
 
BRIDGWATER HOUSE. 
 
 SURRENDER OF “THE ROYAL PRINCE.” 
 
 WILLEM VAN DE VELDE. 
 
 HK Bridgwater House collection is rich in the works of the greatest of 
 all marine-painters (our Turner alone excepted); and none is finer as to 
 beauty and skill in execution than this exquisitely painted sea-fight. 
 The event depicted is thus described by J. Smith in his “ Catalogue 
 Raisonnd ” of W. Van de Velde’s works “ A sea-fight between the English and 
 Dutch Fleets, 1666, the former commanded by the Duke of Albemarle and Prince 
 Rupert, and the latter by Admiral de Ruyter and Van Tromp. The engagement 
 continued four successive days, and such was the equality of skill and bravery 
 displayed, that it was questionable to which of the parties the honour of victory 
 belonged. This picture represents an incident which occurred on the third day of 
 the action: ‘The Royal Prince,’ of ninety-two guns, commanded by Sir George 
 Ascough, while making all sail to join the squadron, struck on the Galloper Sands, 
 and being thus disabled, the Admiral was under the necessity of surrendering. 
 The vessel nearest to the spectator is the one alluded to in this description. The 
 fleets are seen some distance off preparing for action.” Smith adds that “ this is 
 an example of the highest quality.” Waagen says, “This picture unites great 
 power and striking effect with the most masterly finish.” Indeed, so wonderful is 
 the minuteness of this painting, that the Dutch sailors (although not larger than 
 flies) can be seen swarming up the rigging of the prisoned English man-of-war and 
 hauling down the English colours : the royal arms, which form the figure-head of 
 “ The Royal Prince,” are also easily recognized. 
 
 This picture was in the Geldermeester collection, and was afterwards bought 
 from that of Walsh Porter in 1803 by the Duke of Bridgwater, for 410 guineas. 
 It has been engraved in the “ Stafford Gallery.” It is apparently not signed 
 by the painter. There is a larger picture, also by Van de Velde, at Bridgwater 
 House, representing the same incident. 
 
 On panel, 1 ft. ii in. by 1 ft 5 in. 
 
- 
 
NEWNHAM P ADD OX. 
 
 MRS. POWYS. 
 
 ROMNEY. 
 
 RS. POWYS, the wife of Thomas Jelf Powys, of Berwick House, near 
 ] H Shrewsbury, was the mother of Anne Katherine, who, in 1791, married 
 William Robert Viscount Feilding, and who five years later became 
 the mother of William Basil Percy Feilding : he succeeded his grand- 
 father in 1800, as seventh Earl of Denbigh. 
 
 The Earl of Denbigh also possesses a “ Portrait of Mrs. Powys and her 
 daughter Viscountess Feilding,” by Sir Joshua Reynolds : it was exhibited at the 
 “Old Masters” Exhibition in 1873. 
 
LADY TAUNTON'S COLLECTION. 
 
 THE THREE MARIES AT THE SEPULCHRE. 
 
 MANTEGNA. 
 
 ■ F this picture, Waagen, who saw it when it was at Stoke Park, says in 
 his “Art Treasures of Great Britain : ” “ Very peculiarly and spiritually 
 conceived. An angel, of slender and graceful figure and lofty 
 expression, is holding the grave clothes. Mary Magdalen, who is 
 indicated by the customary accessories, is looking with animated action into the 
 tomb. The two other women are more in the foreground. The rock wherein the 
 sepulchre is hewn has the minute characteristics usual with him. In a pond are 
 ducks and a tortoise. One of the finest pictures of the master, of his middle 
 period. From the collection of William Coningham, Esq.” 
 
 It was exhibited at the Exhibition of Old Masters, at Burlington House, in 
 1870, under the title of the * Angel at the Tomb.’ In reviewing the Exhibition, 
 a writer in the Athenaeum says : “ The pictures which bear the name of Andrea 
 Mantegna are of value and interest.” After mentioning Lady Eastlake’s ‘Virgin, 
 Child, and St. John, with SS. Joachim and Anna ’—which six years later passed 
 into the Dresden Gallery and was thus lost to England— and “ a much earlier 
 picture, doubtless the triumph of his youth,” Mr. Baring’s 1 Christ on the Mount of 
 Olives,’ he goes on to say, “The little ‘Angel at the Tomb’ (143), in dignity of 
 design, carefully disposed composition, sweetness and grandeur of conception, 
 distinguishes this master, and aptly represents a phase of style intermediate to 
 those of Mr. Baring’s and Lady Eastlake’s pictures above named.” 
 
 On panel, 1 ft. 4J in., by 1 ft. 
 
DOWNE HALL. 
 
 THE COUNTESS OF SOUTHESK. 
 
 LELY. 
 
 I ^gfADY ANNE HAMILTON, the eldest daughter of William, second 
 «|t Duke of Hamilton, lost her father when she was still a child. She 
 early appeared at the Court of Charles II. as the friend of Lady Castle- 
 gH)| maine, and soon married Lord Carnegie, the eldest son of the Earl of 
 Southesk. Her career was one course of dissipation : she did not long survive the 
 loss of her favourite son William, who was killed in a duel in 1681, but the exact 
 date of her death is not known. Her husband, who outlived her, died in 1688. 
 
 This picture, which must certainly be considered one of the finest of Lely’s 
 works, was formerly in the galleries at Stowe. On the dispersion of the Duke of 
 Buckingham’s collection, in 1848, it was purchased for ^84 : it was shortly after- 
 wards bought by Mr. James Dorington, a well-known connoisseur in art, by whom 
 it was bequeathed, in 1880, to the present owner, Mr. Teesdale. 
 
 There is every reason to believe that this picture had been at Stowe almost 
 from the time when it was painted: in the same collection there was also a 
 contemporary copy of it by Theodore Russel, which was bought at the sale by 
 Colonel Hamilton, a descendant of Lady Southesk. 
 
 In spite, or rather in ignorance, of this proof of its genuineness, a charge of 
 unauthenticity has indirectly been brought against it. At Narford there is a portrait 
 by Lely, long known as that of Lady Southesk, differing from the Stowe picture in 
 every respect — features, complexion, and expression. It is clear that one or the 
 other is misnamed. 
 
 Walpole accepted the title of the Narford picture without question, and had a 
 drawing made from it, which was subsequently sold at the Strawberry Hill sale in 
 1842, as a portrait of Lady Anne Hamilton, wife of the Earl of Southesk , and 
 Granger, in his “ Biographical History of England,” mentions the portraits of “ Lady 
 Chesterfield and Lady Southesk at the late Sir Andrew Fountaine’s at Narford.” 
 This Narford picture is a replica of one of the ten original “ Windsor Beauties, 
 

 
 
 
 1 t L I 
 
 
 
 ^ T a 
 
 
 
 ML 
 
 
 
 L vlM 
 
THE COUNTESS OF SOUTHESK. 
 
 now at Hampton Court, which has always been known as that of Lady Whitmore, 
 and which is recorded in Chiffinch’s catalogue of James II. ’s collection as, “ Lady 
 Denham’s Sister.” And beyond these facts, which are in themselves almost suffi- 
 cient proof of its authenticity, this portrait of Frances Brooke, afterwards Lady 
 Whitmore, bears a strong likeness to that of her elder sister Elizabeth, Lady 
 Denham, another of the eleven “ Beauties,” which originally hung in the queen’s 
 bedchamber at Windsor Castle. Early in the present century they were removed 
 to Hampton Court, where they still hang amongst other celebrities of the Court of 
 Charles II. : there are now ten ; one is missing. 
 
 Mrs. Jameson, in her “ Court Beauties of the reign of Charles II.,” in describing 
 this portrait, notices that it is a duplicate of the Narford picture, and says, on the 
 authority of Walpole and Granger, that it must represent Lady Southesk. But 
 after giving a memoir of her, she adds, as though half in doubt, “ the girlish and 
 almost rustic simplicity of the face, and the demure colour of the drapery, which is 
 of a dark lavender tint, strangely belie the character of the woman to whom it is 
 here attributed.” She, however, concludes by saying, “ But for reasons already 
 stated, I have little doubt that it is really the portrait of the Countess of Southesk.” 
 
 Mr. Ernest Law, in evident ignorance of the Stowe portrait of Lady 
 Southesk, merely records these facts, in his carefully compiled “ Historical 
 Catalogue of the Pictures in the Royal Collection at Hampton Court ” (1881) : 
 “ This picture is traditionally known as ‘ Lady Whitmore,’ Lady Denham’s sister, 
 under which title it was engraved in mezzotint about one hundred years ago by 
 Thomas Watson ; and it is to be traced in James ll.’s catalogue, No. 1,1 18, among 
 the original Beauties, ‘ Lady Denham’s Sister.’ Nevertheless, it was called by 
 Mrs. Jameson, ‘ Anne, Countess of Southesk,’ on the authority of an old duplicate, 
 although she admitted that the whole picture strangely belies the character of the 
 Countess.” 
 
 Now the question at issue is this. If the Narford and Hampton Court pictures 
 do represent Lady Southesk, then that formerly at Stowe, and now at Downe Hall, 
 does not, for it differs from them in a marked degree. 
 
 But inasmuch as the evidence almost decidedly proves that the Hampton 
 Court picture is that of Lady Whitmore, we are led to the conclusion that the 
 Narford portrait has been misnamed ever since the days of Sir Andrew Fountaine, 
 a contemporary of both ladies, and that the picture before us really does represent 
 Lady Southesk. 
 
 Let it be who it may, it is a magnificent work by Lely, in the finest state of 
 preservation. 
 
 At the Manchester Exhibition in 1857, a half-length portrait of the Countess 
 of Southesk, also by Lely, was lent by Lord Lyttelton. 
 
 On canvas, 4 ft. 1 in., by 3 ft. 4 i in. 
 
HERTFORD HOUSE. 
 
 REFLECTIONS. 
 
 GREUZE. 
 
 HIS charming study of a child by Greuze was bought by Sir Richard 
 Wallace at the sale of the Prince de Beauvau’s Collection at Paris, in 
 1865. It is thus described in the sale catalogue, which contains the 
 names of only eight paintings : — “ 5. Greuze. T6te de jeune garijon. 
 Coiffd de cheveux blonds bouclds, le doigt sur sa bouche. Col rabattu sur un gilet 
 violet. Cette ravissante tfite a autant de charme et de grace que si c’dtait celle 
 d’une jeune fille ; la couleur, la franchise de l’exdcution, le modeld, tout indique 
 qu’elle a dt € faite dans le plus beau moment du maitre. Toile. Haut 40 cent, 
 larg. 32 cent.” 
 
 The early history of this picture is not known. Greuze painted a large number 
 of similar subjects. Of 173 works by him mentioned in Smith’s “Catalogue 
 Raisonnd” no less than 98 are single female figures; and — with the exception 
 that it is called a girl instead of a boy, a very likely difference of opinion, and 
 the fact that it is oval and not oblong — there is one of these which tallies almost 
 exactly with the description in the De Beauvau catalogue of the picture before us. 
 The entry in Smith’s Catalogue runs thus : — “ 83. A pretty Girl, about twelve 
 years of age, dressed in a white chemise, and a purple colour frock. She has 
 auburn hair, and the face is shewn in a three-quarter view, with the head inclining 
 to the right as if she were listening, which is also indicated by the right hand 
 being raised to the face. This is a pleasing example of the Master. 1 ft. 8 in. by 
 1 ft. 4 in. P. (oval). Collection of M. J. Lafitte, 1834. 6,700 fs., ^268.” 
 
 On canvas, 1 ft. 3I in., by 1 ft. } in. 
 
STAFFORD HOUSE. 
 
 ELIZABETH, COUNTESS GROSVENOR. 
 
 LAWRENCE. 
 
 ADY ELIZABETH GOWER, daughter of the first Duke of Suther- 
 land, was born in 1797 ; she married, in 1819, Lord Grosvenor, who 
 afterwards became second Marquis of Westminster. 
 
 Of this picture the eminent artist, C. R. Leslie, R.A., writes in his 
 “ Handbook for Young Painters” (that most delightful of all English books on 
 the subject of art), “The most beautiful of his (Lawrence’s) female heads, and 
 beautiful it is, is the one he painted of Lady Elizabeth Gower. This was begun 
 and finished off-hand.” 
 
 This portrait has been admirably engraved by Samuel Cousins. 
 
DOWNE HALL. 
 
 THOMAS TEESDALE. 
 
 HUGH ROBINSON. 
 
 MONG the curiosities of the Exhibition should be noticed a 
 
 powerful picture of a boy tugging at a kite-string, by one Hugh 
 Robinson, whose name is not mentioned in any history of English 
 art. The work belongs to Mr. Teesdale, and is remarkable in more 
 respects than there is space to mention here. One of them is that the boy is 
 dressed in green, and has a very green landscape behind him. In fact, Hugh 
 Robinson attempted a more difficult feat than Gainsborough in his ‘ Blue Boy.’ 
 Its success is not perfect, as the figure is not sufficiently relieved from the back- 
 ground.” It was thus that a writer in the “Academy” drew attention to this 
 painting when it was at the recent “Old Masters” Exhibition (1881). It is a 
 portrait of a nephew of the artist. 
 
 This is, indeed, a picture that is remarkable in many respects. In spite of 
 the dark green tone in which it is painted, photography has been very fairly suc- 
 cessful in the reproduction ; it distinctly displays the evident power of the drawing 
 — a power that is all the more remarkable when the facts of the artist’s life are 
 taken into account. Briefly, they are these. He was the eldest son and second 
 child of Henry Robinson, Esq., of Malton, in Yorkshire, and was born in that 
 town, about the year 1760. He early practised art, but there is no record, even in 
 his own family, of any painter having given him practical instruction. In 1780 he 
 exhibited a “ Portrait of a Gentleman” in the Royal Academy, and two years later 
 he contributed a “ Head of a Beggar” and another “ Portrait of a Gentleman 
 these were all his exhibited works. He then went, probably in 1783, to Italy, and 
 resided there, chiefly in Rome, where Flaxman, also a native of Yorkshire, was 
 then living. In 1790 he started on horseback on his way home: he, however, 
 never reached England, and all his pictures, the fruits of seven years’ labour in 
 Italy, were lost in a ship which foundered at sea. This is much to be regretted ; 
 and yet before he left England, that is to say, before he was twenty-four years old, 
 he had executed sufficient pictures — almost all of which are at Downe Hall — to 
 
THOMAS TEESDALE. 
 
 warrant us in reckoning him amongst England’s best portrait-painters, and that 
 too at a time when Gainsborough was at his prime. 
 
 Besides this painting, which, curiously enough, must have been executed 
 about the same time as the “ Blue Boy,” and which is generally considered his 
 masterpiece, Robinson has left us a charming picture of a boy reclining in a 
 landscape playing a flute, and family portraits (his father, mother, brother, uncle 
 and nephew), as well as one of Sir William St. Quentin, a friend of the family ; 
 two excellent likenesses of himself ; and last, but not least, a head of an old man 
 wearing a turban, which is, in all probability, the “ Head of a Beggar" which he 
 exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1782. 
 
 A short account of Hugh Robinson first appeared in the “Athenaeum” for 
 March 12th, 1881. 
 
 We must not forget to mention that this picture has been successfully 
 mezzotinted by S. W. Reynolds. An artist's proof of this engraving is also at 
 Downe Hall. 
 
 Canvas, 4 ft. 1 in. by 3 ft. 3 in. 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 HENRY HOWARD, 
 
 EARL OF NORTHAMPTON. 
 
 VAN SOMER. 
 
 FOUND my Lord Northampton,” writes Horace Walpole after 
 visiting Castle Howard in 1772, “his name is on his picture.” 
 
 Henry Howard was the second son of the great Earl of Surrey, 
 by Frances, daughter of the Earl of Oxford. He was born in 1539. 
 Of young Howard at Cambridge, Bishop Godwin said, he was known as “ the 
 learnedest amongst the nobility, and the most noble amongst the learned.” 
 
 In spite of his having been a great endower of charitable institutions and in 
 spite of his literary renown, neither his public nor his private character would bear 
 investigation, and there is every reason to believe that he had a hand in the 
 murder of Overbury: but he “died luckily before the plot came to light.” Among 
 his contemporaries he had a bad reputation. Lady Bacon, the mother of Sir 
 Francis, calls him “a dangerous intelligencing man, and no doubt a subtile papist 
 inwardly ; a very instrument of the Spanish papists.” “ No mistaken judgment," 
 says Walpole, in his ‘ Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors of England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland ’ (a work which contains much concerning the life of Lord 
 Northampton) ; “ he had been bred a papist ; and though at this time he seems to 
 have acted protestantism, he openly reverted to popery in the next reign, which at 
 the king’s request he again abandoned, and yet at his death avowed himself a 
 catholic.” Sir Anthony Weldon and De Beaumont, the French ambassador of 
 the time, both mention him as one of the greatest flatterers living ; Sir Fulke 
 Greville says, “ he was famous for secret insinuation and for cunning flatteries, 
 and, by reason of these flatteries, a fit man for the conditions of those times.” 
 
 Of the numerous writers who mention Lord Northampton, Dr. Nott is 
 almost the only one who attempts to defend his character from the grave charges 
 brought against it ; in his Appendix to the works of Lord Surrey, Dr. Nott offers 
 “ a very ingenious vindication of the earl of Northampton from various aspersions 
 on his character.” 
 
 Lord Northampton will be better known as the builder of Northumberland 
 House, which in his day was called after him. He died in that house in 1614. 
 He was buried in Dover Castle, of which he was then governor. He was also 
 Lord Privy Seal, High Steward of Oxford, and Chancellor of Cambridge. 
 
 This portrait was exhibited among the National Portraits at South Kensington 
 in 1 866. It is, as may be readily seen, dated 1606. 
 
 Panel, 2 ft. 7 in., by 2 ft. ij in. 
 
— 
 
. 
 
 . 
 
 I 
 
 . 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 * 
 
i'v 
 
THE GREAT 
 
 HISTORIC GALLERIES 
 
 OF 
 
 ENGLAND 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 LORD RONALD GOWER, F.S.A. 
 
 TRUSTEE OF THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON, SEARLE, AND RIVINGTON, 
 
 Crown Buildings, 188, Fleet Street. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 SUBJECT. 
 
 1. Three Children of Christian II. of 
 
 Denmark . 
 
 2. The Countess Gower and Lady 
 
 Elizabeth Gower (frontispiece) 
 
 3. Miniatures 
 
 Charlotte Augusta, Princess Royal 
 Maria, Duchess of Gloucester 
 Princess Mary (afterwards Duchess of 
 Gloucester) 
 
 Princess Sophia .... 
 William Henry, Duke of Clarence 
 (afterwards William IV.) . 
 Augustus, Duke of Sussex 
 
 4. Lady Vaux 
 
 5. The Christ of Caprarola . 
 
 6. Lady Hamilton as Cassandra . 
 
 7. A Gentleman Writing 
 
 8. Miniatures. 
 
 William, fifth Duke of Devonshire 
 William Spencer (afterwards sixth Duke 
 of Devonshire) 
 
 Lady Georgiana Cavendish and Lady 
 Harriet Elizabeth Cavendish 
 
 9. Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (3 
 
 portraits) .... 
 
 10. Juan de Pareja .... 
 
 11. St. John Baptising Christ . 
 
 12. Miniature. 
 
 Sir Philip Sidney .... 
 
 13. Charles Lewis, Count Palatine 
 
 14. BartolomE EstEban Murillo 
 
 15. Miniatures 
 
 Robert Car, Earl of Somerset . 
 Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex 
 Frances Howard, Countess of Somerset 
 Lucius Cary, second Viscount Falkland 
 James Stuart, second Duke of Richmond 
 George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham 
 
 PAINTER. 
 
 IN POSSESSION OF 
 
 Mabuse 
 
 The Queen. 
 
 Lawrence 
 
 Duke of Sutherland , K. 
 The Queen. 
 
 Ozias Humphrey. 
 
 
 Cosway. 
 
 
 Cosway. 
 
 
 Holbein 
 
 Annibale Carracci 
 Romney . . 
 
 Metsu .... 
 
 The Queen. 
 
 Henry Stables , Esq. 
 Lady Taunton. 
 
 Mrs. Hope. 
 
 Cos way .... 
 
 Duke of Sutherland ', K. G. 
 
 Cos way .... 
 
 Duke of Sutherland, K. G. 
 
 Cosway .... 
 
 Lady Taunton. 
 
 Cos way .... 
 
 Velazquez 
 
 Francia 
 
 The Queen. 
 
 Castle Howard. 
 The Queen. 
 
 Isaac Oliver. . 
 
 A ttributed to Vagi 'Dyck 
 Murillo 
 
 The Queen. 
 
 Castle Howard. 
 Earl Spencer, K.G. 
 
 The Queen. 
 
 John Hoskins. 
 
 Isaac Oliver. 
 
 John Hoskins. 
 
 Attributed to Alexander Cooper. 
 Isaac Oliver. 
 
 mam 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 SUBJECT. 
 
 PAINTER. 
 
 IN POSSESSION OF 
 
 16. The Virgin and Child with Saints 
 
 
 
 and Donors 
 
 Memlmc 
 
 . Duke of Devonshire, K.G. 
 
 17. The Piping Boy 
 
 Hugh Robinson 
 
 . J. M. Tees dale, Esq. 
 
 18. The Family of Rubens 
 
 Fruytiers 
 
 . The Queen. 
 
 19. Pope Innocent X 
 
 Velazquez 
 
 . Duke of Devonshire, K.G. 
 
 20. The Infant Saviour dreaming of 
 
 
 
 His Passion 
 
 Guido Reni . 
 
 . Earl of Ellesmere. 
 
 21. Frederick Howard, fifth Earl of 
 
 
 
 Carlisle 
 
 Reynolds 
 
 . Castle Howard. 
 
 22. Portrait of a Child .... 
 
 Sanchez-Coello 
 
 . Duke of Devonshire, K.G. 
 
 23. A Village Festival .... 
 
 Wouwevman 
 
 . Mrs. Hope. 
 
 24. Miniatures 
 
 
 . Castle Howard. 
 
 Algernon Percy, Earl of Northumber- 
 
 
 
 land ...... 
 
 After Van Dyck. 
 
 
 The Countess of Chesterfield. 
 
 
 
 Thomas Flatman. 
 
 
 
 Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, and the 
 
 
 
 Countess of Essex 
 
 Attributed to Peter Oliver. 
 
 25. Portrait of a Lady .... 
 
 Flinck . 
 
 . Marquis of Bute, K.T. 
 
 26. Self-satisfaction 
 
 Meissonier . 
 
 . Sir Richard Wallace, Bt ., K.C.B. 
 
 27. Omiah 
 
 Reynolds 
 
 Castle Howard. 
 
 28. Frans Snyders 
 
 Van Dyck 
 
 Castle Howard. 
 
 29. A Merry Making 
 
 G. van Herp 
 
 . Marquis of Bute, K.T. 
 
 30. The Alchemist 
 
 Teniers 
 
 . Duke of Devonshire, K.G. 
 
 31. Elizabeth Hamilton, afterwards 
 
 
 
 Countess de Grammont . 
 
 Lely . 
 
 The Queen. 
 
 32. Old Man Reading .... 
 
 Dou . 
 
 . Marquis of Bute, K. T. 
 
 33. Miniatures 
 
 
 . The Queen. 
 
 Elizabeth Farren, Countess of Derby. 
 
 
 
 Margaret Woffington. 
 
 
 
 Colley Cibber .... 
 
 W. Robins. 
 
 
 34. Francis II. of France .... 
 
 Janet . 
 
 The Queen. 
 
 35. Winter Landscape .... 
 
 Van der Neer 
 
 . Marquis of Bute, K. T. 
 
 36. Miniatures 
 
 
 . The Queen. 
 
 George IV. 
 
 
 
 Queen Charlotte (3 portraits) 
 
 Ozias Humphrey , after 
 
 Gaitisborough. 
 
HAMPTON COURT. 
 
 THREE CHILDREN OF CHRISTIAN II. 
 OF DENMARK. 
 
 MABUSE. 
 
 ■ NTIL Mr. Scharf in a paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 
 1861, and reprinted in the “ Archaeologia,” vol. xxxix. 245 — dispelled 
 the illusion, this painting was generally considered to represent the 
 three children of Henry VII., Prince Arthur, Prince Henry and the 
 Princess Margaret : and, as may be seen by the photograph, it still bears on its 
 frame the misleading title, in spite of the fact that Mr. Scharf s emendation has 
 been universally accepted for upwards of twenty years. 
 
 The principal points of evidence in favour of the change are : 1, the entry in 
 Henry VIII.'s catalogue (quoted below) which in all probability refers to this 
 picture ; 2, the fact that the features of the children represented bear no resemblance 
 to those of the children of Henry VII.— the eyes, especially, being brown instead 
 of blue; 3, that the costume is rather of the time of Henry VIII. than Henry VII. ; 
 and 4, that their apparent respective ages agree with those of the children of 
 that very despotically-disposed king, Christian II. of Denmark, who, with his wife 
 Isabella of Austria, a niece of our Catharine of Aragon, spent twenty-two days in 
 England in 1523, after he had been deposed by his subjects. He then retired to 
 Flanders, where he spent the next ten years. This painting was executed, probably 
 about 1524 or 1525, by Mabuse, who, we read, was employed by the Danish 
 monarch to paint his dwarfs and his children. 
 
 Mabuses traditional visit to England is based almost entirely on the 
 supposition that this picture represented the children of Henry VII., and with 
 the one myth we must abandon the other. 
 
 Prince John, who was born in 1518, is seen in the centre of the painting 
 The figure on his right was formerly supposed to be a boy and to be a portrait of 
 the young Prince Henry, but Mr. Scharf says “ it is more than probable from the 
 dress for instance, the shape of the opening for the neck, the necklace, and the 
 ermine for the sleeves— that the second child represents a girl.” If this be so, it must 
 be the Princess Dorothy, who was born in 1520, and subsequently married the 
 Elector Palatine. On Prince John’s left is the young Princess Christina, who 
 was born about 1521, or a little later, and whose portrait (painted by Holbein, 'when 
 she was wearing widow’s weeds for her young husband the Duke of Milan) has 
 already appeared in this work. One can almost fancy that there is a likeness 
 between the portrait of the infant by Mabuse, and the somewhat babylike face of 
 
THREE CHILDREN OF CHRISTIAN II. OF DENMARK. 
 
 the young widow as she appears in Holbein’s work, where she has deep brown eyes. 
 Christian II. had two other children, Philip and Maximilian, who both died young. 
 
 The following are the official records of this picture : — (It is probably identical 
 with the picture entered in Henry VIII. ’s catalogue, compiled in I 54 2 -) 
 
 “ Item, a table w th the pictures of the thre children of the Kynge of Denmarke, 
 w th a curtayne of white and yellow sarcenett paned together.” 
 
 In Van der Doort’s manuscript catalogue of Charles I.’s collection, it is 
 “ No. 60. Item, under the said picture another picture, wherein two men children 
 and one woman child playing with some apples, by a green table. Little half- 
 figures, upon a board, in a wooden frame. A Whitehall piece thought to be of 
 Jennet.” In Vertue’s printed edition of this catalogue the “apples” are changed 
 into “oranges,” and “thought to be of Jennet” into “curiously painted by 
 Mabusius ; ” a foot-note is added to the effect that the children are Prince Arthur, 
 Prince Henry and Princess Margaret: and Vertue engraved it in 1748 under 
 that title, and under that title it remained until 1861. When Vertue made his 
 catalogue for Queen Caroline in 1743, this picture was in her china closet at 
 Kensington Palace. Six years later it was in her china closet at Windsor Castle, 
 as we learn from the “ History and Antiquities of Windsor Castle, &c.” (published 
 in 1749) by Pote, who mentions it as “ Pictures of Prince Arthur and his two 
 sisters, children of K. Henry VII. by Holbein,” and thus anticipates Mr. Scharf 
 in his belief that the second child is a girl. 
 
 In the Commonwealth inventory, it is entered among the pictures of St. James’s 
 Palace, as “ Three children in one piece by Mabusee, sold to Mr. Grinder for ^10, 
 23rd Oct. 1651.” 
 
 On its back it bears the false inscription, “ Henry huit'”' Roy d la Grande 
 Bretagne, auec ses deux soeiires. Marie espousa Louis XII. Roy de France, en 
 suitte Brandon. Margarite espouse Jaques 1 1 1 1 . Roy d’Escosse. 
 
 No replica of this picture is known to exist abroad, even in Denmark ; but 
 there are several replicas, or rather copies, in England, all on panel ; one in the 
 possession of Lord Pembroke at Wilton (which has the misnomers inscribed over 
 the heads of the children, and which, together with the Hampton Court picture, was 
 exhibited at the rooms of the Society of Antiquaries in 1861); another at Sudely 
 Castle (formerly in the collections of Richard Cosway and at Strawberry Hill); a 
 third in the possession of Lord Radnor at Longford Castle ; and a fourth in Lord 
 Methuen’s Gallery at Corsham, which was exhibited at the British Institution in 
 1857 (No. 73 of catalogue). 
 
 Lord Pembroke’s picture had previously been exhibited at Manchester in 
 1857, where it was noticed by M. Burger as “un des tableaux les plus curieux 
 de la galerie des portraits,” aijd thinking that it represented Henry VI I.’s children, 
 he speaks of “ le terrible bambin qui devint Henry VIII.” 
 
 For information concerning this and other works at Hampton Court we are 
 indebted to Mr. Law’s new “ Historical Catalogue of the Pictures in the Royal 
 Collection at Hampton Court.” 
 
 It may be as well to here state that each painting at Hampton Court bears two 
 numbers, one the old registered inventory number, painted on the face of the 
 picture ; and the other the new consecutive number, in order of arrangement in the 
 galleries, rendered necessary by the re-hanging of the pictures some years ago. 
 
 This painting, formerly 309, is now No. 595. 
 
 On panel, 1 ft. 2 in. by 1 ft. 6 in. 
 
STAFFORD HOUSE. 
 
 THE COUNTESS GOWER AND LADY 
 ELIZABETH GOWER. 
 
 LAWRENCE. 
 
 lRRIET HOWARD, daughter of George, sixth Earl of Carlisle, was 
 born in 1806, and married in 1823 George Granville, Earl Gower, 
 afterwards second Duke of Sutherland. She died in 1868. 
 
 Her daughter, Elizabeth Gower, who was born in 1824, married, 
 at the age of twenty, Lord Lome, afterwards eighth Duke of Argyll. She died in 
 1878. 
 
 The Duchess of Sutherland, then Countess Gower, was at the time when Sir 
 Thomas Lawrence painted this portrait of her and her eldest child, in her twenty- 
 first year. It is generally and rightly considered the finest group that Lawrence 
 ever achieved. As the French art-critic has written of it, it is “ la grace et la beautd 
 m£me : ” and Mrs. Jameson, in her account of the Private Galleries of London, 
 says: “This picture must be ranked as the finest ever painted by Lawrence.” 
 It is in admirable preservation. 
 
 There is a superb mezzotint of it by Mr. Samuel Cousins ; and by this and 
 other engravings it is widely known. 
 
 On canvas, 7 ft. 9J in. by 4 ft. 9J in. 
 
WINDSOR CASTLE. 
 
 MINIATURES. 
 
 COSWAY and HUMPHREY. 
 
 SE here give portraits of five of the fifteen children of George III., as well 
 as one of his sister-in-law, Maria, second daughter of Sir Edward 
 Walpole, who married, first, James, second Earl of Waldegrave (who 
 died in 1763), and afterwards, in 1766, Prince William Henry, first Duke 
 of Gloucester, the third son of Frederick, Prince of Wales. This portrait of the 
 Duchess of Gloucester, who died in 1807, was painted by Ozias Humphrey in 1769. 
 
 William Henry, the third son of George III. and Queen Charlotte of Mecklen- 
 burg-Strelitz, was born in 1765, created Duke of Clarence in 1789, succeeded his 
 brother as King William IV. in 1830, and died in 1837. 
 
 Charlotte Augusta, Princess Royal, the eldest daughter, was born in 1766. 
 She is said to have been remarkable for her fine figure, and, if her portraits and the 
 descriptions of various cotemporaries be correct, she was not without a certain 
 rather haughty style of beauty. 
 
 In 1797 she married the Duke of Wiirtemberg, who was afterwards created 
 King of Wiirtemberg. The marriage was fruitless, but she was a kind and prudent 
 stepmother to her husband’s three children by a former wife. She died in 1828. 
 
 Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, who was the sixth son, was born in 1773, 
 and led a quiet life, not taking any part in either civil or military politics, principally 
 on account of his ill-health. He married first, in 1793, Lady Augusta Murray, 
 which union was afterwards declared null and void in accordance with the rules of 
 the Royal Marriage Act, and secondly, in later years, Lady Cecilia Underwood, who, 
 surviving his death in 1843. received the title of Duchess of Inverness. 
 
 Mary, afterwards Duchess of Gloucester, the fourth daughter of George 
 III., was the one who, of all that numerous family, survived him the longest. 
 She was born in 1776, and appears to have possessed a sweet and amiable 
 disposition. On her first introduction at Court, Miss Burney says, “she looked 
 most interesting and unaffectedly lovely : she is a sweet creature, and perhaps in 
 point of beauty the first of this truly beautiful race, of which Princess Mary may be 
 called the pendant to the Prince of Wales.” 
 
 In 1816 she married, after many years of secret attachment, her cousin, Prince 
 William, afterwards Duke of Gloucester, whom royal exigencies had for a long 
 time intended as the bridegroom of the young Princess Charlotte. The Duchess 
 of Gloucester, who died in 1857, survived her husband twenty-three years. 
 
 Princess Sophia, the fifth daughter, was born in 1777. 
 and ended a long and quiet life in 1848. 
 
 She never married, 
 
Princess Sophia. Augustus, Duke of Sussex. 
 
 By Cosway. 
 
HAMPTON COURT. 
 
 LADY VAUX. 
 
 HOLBEIN. 
 
 HE following account of the history of this picture, we gather from 
 Mr. Ernest Law’s catalogue “ It did not belong to Charles I., but is 
 probably identical with 1 The picture of Madame de Vaux, by Holbein,’ 
 which was among the Duke of Buckingham’s pictures sent to be sold 
 at Antwerp, whence it presumably returned with ‘the Dutch Gift,’ for we find it 
 in James II. s catalogue, No. 410, described as ‘ One of King Henry VIII. ’s Queens, 
 holding a gillyflower.’ ” 
 
 Pinks not unfrequently occur in portraits of about this period and a little 
 earlier. The “ Dutch Gift ” was a number of paintings purchased by the States 
 of Holland from the collector Van Reynst (who had bought largely at the sale of 
 Charles I.’s collection), and by them presented to Charles II. at a time when he 
 was endeavouring to get back at least some of his father’s treasures which had 
 been ruthlessly dispersed by Cromwell, the greater part never to return. 
 
 Of this painting, Dr. Woltmann — -who considers it and the portrait of 
 Reskymer (which unfortunately is not suitable for reproduction by photography) 
 to be the only two original pictures by Holbein at Hampton Court — says: — 
 “Similar in treatment [to a portrait of a young lady in the gallery of Count 
 Casimir Lanckoronski at Vienna] is the small portrait of Lady Vaux, of which two 
 examples exist, the one in the gallery at Prague and the other at Hampton Court : 
 both are much damaged, the latter has been repainted on the face. She holds a 
 pink ; and the cuffs, the ring, the gold and enamel clasp, with the picture of 
 St. Anna on her breast, and the fine black chain which hangs round her neck, are 
 all of the greatest delicacy.” The enamel evidently represents the Virgin ; the 
 replica is in the gallery of the “ Patriotische Kunstfreunde” at Prague. 
 
 The Hampton Court picture, which shows the customary head-dress of the 
 time, was exhibited at the “ Old Masters ” Exhibition at Burlington House in 1880, 
 when there were no less than thirty-six paintings catalogued under Holbein’s 
 name. 
 
LADY VAUX. 
 
 Amongst the series of eighty portrait-studies by Holbein in the Royal Col- 
 lection at Windsor Castle, is one of Lady Vaux, drawn in black chalk with yellow 
 on the hood — on flesh-coloured paper, from which the Hampton Court picture, 
 which also shows a black dress and yellow in the head-dress, is evidently taken. 
 The ladies do not form the strong part of this grand series of portraits, but that 
 of Lady Vaux is one of the best — inferior only, perhaps, in point of power and 
 character to those of Lady Butts and Lady Heveningham : and the drawing at 
 Windsor displays finer draughtsmanship than the painting at Hampton Court. 
 
 Elizabeth— the only child of Sir Thomas Cheney, of Ditton, in Cambridgeshire, 
 and his second wife, Anne, daughter of Sir William Par — was born in 1505, and 
 married Thomas, second Lord Vaux of Harwedon (Harrowden), who was born in 
 1510: her husband, through her, became possessed of the Manors of Irtlingburgh, 
 Thenford, Craneford, and Windlingburgh, which, together with other valuable 
 estates in Northamptonshire, were derived from her father’s first marriage with 
 Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Huddleston, of Irtlingburgh. Lady Vaux bore her 
 husband four children — two sons and two daughters. 
 
 Two portraits of Lord Vaux are among the Holbein drawings at Windsor 
 Castle, and a portrait of his eldest son, William, third Lord Vaux, is in the 
 possession of the present Lord Vaux of Harrowden. It was lent to the National 
 Portrait Exhibition at South Kensington in 1868. 
 
 On panel, 1 ft. 3 in. by nj in. 
 
COLLECTION OF HENRY STABLES, ESQ. 
 HORSFORTH. 
 
 THE CHRIST OF CAPRAROLA. 
 
 ANNIBALE CARRACCI. 
 
 F the history of this painting — which bears a slight resemblance to the 
 famous “ Three Maries” at Castle Howard, of which we have already 
 given a copy — we have been able to learn but little. It is undoubtedly 
 the design of Annibale Carracci, for an engraving by him exists, 
 which, except that it is reversed, is similar in composition, but has in the back- 
 ground a sky-line and the bases of two of the Crosses secured by means of wedges. 
 
 In the portfolio of original engravings by Carracci in the Print Room at 
 the British Museum are two impressions of this plate. The earliest bears the 
 date 1597 (the 7 reversed) on a stone in the right-hand bottom corner, but 
 no name, and not even the word “ Caprarolae ” mentioned by Bartsch : in the 
 second and later state, the date has been obliterated by the addition of a few blades 
 of grass, and the inscription, Annibal Caracuts fe Caprarolce , 1597, placed at the 
 bottom of the plate at the left-hand side. 
 
 The following is Bartsch’s description of this engraving, which measures 6| in. 
 by 4! in. 
 
 “LE CHRIST DE CAPRAROLE. 
 
 “ Le corps mort de Jdsus Christ descendu de la croix, et etendu sur les genoux 
 de la Ste. Vierge qui s’dvanouit k ce triste spectacle entre les bras d’une des sainte 
 femmes. Prds d’elle est assis St. Jean qui soutient le bras droit du Sauveur, et 
 en fait remarquer la playe a la Madelaine. Cette estampe a dtd gravde a Caprarole 
 sur une planche d’argent, a ce que l’on pretend. On lit a la gauche d'en bas : 
 Annibal Caracius fe Caprarolae, 1597. Cette mSme annee, mais le 7 dcrit k 
 rebours, se voit une second fois gravde a la droit d’en bas, sur une pierre entourde 
 d’herbes. 
 
 “ Largeur, 6 p. Hauteur, 4 p. 6 lign. 
 
 “On trouve, mais trds rarement, de premidres dpreuves avec le seul mot: 
 Caprarolae, et l’annde 1597; les noms Annibal Caracius n’y sont pas. Les 
 
THE CHRIST OF CAPRAROLA. 
 
 dpreuves postdrieures portent vers la droit d’en bas cette adresse . Nico Van 
 Aelft for." 
 
 Nicolaus van Aelst was a native of Brussels who published prints in Rome 
 in the sixteenth and the early years of the seventeenth century. He occasionally 
 handled the burin himself. 
 
 Duplessis, who gives a facsimile of this etching in his “ Histoire de la 
 Gravure,” says : — “ Malgrd le nombre prodigieux de tableaux ou de fresques qu’il 
 entreprit et acheva, Annibal Carrache trouva encore le loisir de graver quelques 
 planches. Deux surtout lui assurent un rang considerable dans l’histoire de la 
 gravure en Italie. Le Christ mort relevd far les saintes femmes ( 1 597 ) [La 
 planche originale se trouve encore aujourd’hui a l’Acaddmie des beaux-arts de 
 Bologne], connu sur le nom de Christ de Caprarole parce que cette estampe fut 
 signde de Caprarole, est entiferement traitd au burin avec une finesse d’outil, une 
 justesse d’expression que l’artiste a rarement obtenues.” The other plate is a 
 drunken Silenus. 
 
 Mai vasia, in his “ Felsina Pittrice : Vite de Pittori Bolognesi,” says of this 
 print " The famous dead Christ on the knees of the Blessed Virgin, with the other 
 Maries and St. John, called commonly the Christ of Caprarola, having been, 
 they say, engraved there in silver; beneath is 1 Caprarolse, 1597 aquafortis, but 
 retouched very much with the graver. [The very rare and beautiful print of 
 Annibale Carracci, called the Christ of Caprarola, was re-engraved in silver plate 
 by the painter Francesco Brizzi, and the ‘ ritaglio ’ is preserved in the Segreteria 
 of the Belle Arti (at Bologna).]” 
 
 This last statement seems to contradict Duplessis’s assertion that the “planche 
 originale ” is in the Academy at Bologna. Francesco Brizzi (1574-1625), a native 
 of Bologna, studied painting under Lodovico and engraving under Agostino 
 Carracci, whom he assisted in the execution of some of his plates. 
 
 Bolognini-Amorini, in his “ Vite dei Pittori ed Artefici Bolognesi,” merely 
 says Annibale (Carracci) amused himself with engraving in aquafortis, and 
 with the graver, many fine prints, among which is to be admired the Christ, called 
 that of Caprarola,” and makes no mention of a painting. Yet the fact that this 
 painting is the reverse of the undoubted engraving of Carracci, tends powerfully to 
 prove that it is either an original work, or else a copy of a painting which has 
 since disappeared. For if the painting at Horsforth, which is on marble, were 
 merely copied from the engraving, it would be the same way. On the other hand, 
 Carracci would, as likely as not, in copying his own painting, draw it straight on 
 to the copper, and then it would print in reverse. Further evidence in favour of 
 its being an original work is found in the fact that on the back of the bed of slate, 
 to which the marble is cemented, amongst some almost illegible writing may be 
 made out the letters “barra” and the date 1590— seven years earlier than the date 
 of the engraving. 
 
 On marble, gl in. by 6J in. 
 
OMNEY never painted a lovelier head than this. His beautiful model, 
 poor Emma Harte, appears indeed inspired. Unfortunately, the colour, 
 which is the principal charm of the work, can not be reproduced by 
 photography. 
 
 Lady Hamilton sat more than once to Romney, as Cassandra. On August 
 the 29th, 1791, the painter writes, “ Cassandra came to town on the 16th, and I 
 began a picture of her, as a present for her mother. I was very successful with it; 
 for it is thought the most beautiful head I have painted of her yet.” 
 
 On canvas, 1 ft. 9} in., by 1 ft. 8 in. 
 
 1 
 
A GENTLEMAN WRITING. 
 
 METSU. 
 
 N size, subject and mode of treatment, this picture forms a fitting 
 counterpart to its companion work, a “ Lady reading a Letter” by the 
 same master, a photograph of which we have already given. Smith, 
 in his ‘ Catalogue Raisonnc,” calls them “ The Letter Writer” and 
 The Letter received, and says, “ These productions (particularly the former) are of 
 the raiest excellence and beauty. They were both at one time in the Bruyn Col- 
 lection, then in the Braamkamp Collection, and they finally became the property of 
 the late Mr. P. H. Hope. They were exhibited together at the British Institution 
 in 1815, and again at the “ Old Masters ” of 1881, when the man’s portrait elicited 
 the following criticism from the pen of Mr. Monkhouse, in the “ Academy:”— 
 "A gentleman m a black dress , writing , deserves special attention for its wonder- 
 fully clever distribution of reds and blacks, its cunning arrangement of line, and 
 exquisite painting of textures. Fine also are the pose and expression of the 
 figure.” 
 
 Waagen, as we have said before, classes these two works among those of 
 Metsu s later period. For ourselves, we are disposed, in spite of the signatures 
 G. Metsu which they bear, to ascribe them to Ver Meer of Delft. 
 
 “ A Gentleman writing” has been engraved by John Burnet in Forster’s 
 “ British Gallery,” and there is a woodcut of it, entitled “ La Correspondance 
 intime,” in the “ Histoire des Peintres,” edited by the late M. Charles Blanc, who 
 says : — “ Lejeune homme en habit noir dcrivant une lettre ) petit chef-d’oeuvre dont 
 l’heureux possesseur est M. Hope, de Londres, laisse voir au fond, suspendu a la 
 muraille, un tableau d’animaux dont la bordure est tourmentde. On y remarque 
 de larges volutes, des coquillages, des plantes marines, et les ornements en sont 
 fouillds de manidre mdme a occuper 1’ceil. Que ces ornements soient de l’invention 
 du peintre, ou qu’ils soient copids sur un moddle existant, ce qui est probable, on 
 peut y puiser d’excellentes iddes pour l’encadrement des tableaux de cette epoque, 
 et aussi de bonnes observations sur un art qui rend i la peinture de si grands 
 services." M. Blanc then diverges into an interesting essay on the desirability of 
 placing pictures in suitable frames ; and he reviews the question in all its bearings. 
 A conversation-piece by Metsu, he tells us, should have “ un cadre riche et profond, 
 mais a la forme simple, aux ornements tranquilles.” 
 
 On panel, 1 ft. 9 in. by 1 ft. 4 in. 
 
HE centre of these three miniatures is a masterpiece. One can 
 not but admire the child-like grace and simplicity, the tender yet 
 powerful drawing and high finish, which speak from every line. The 
 eyes, which are of a deep blue, are most life-like in expression. It 
 represents Lady Carlisle and her sister, Lady Granville, as children. On the one 
 side of them is their father, on the other their brother, the fifth and sixth Dukes of 
 Devonshire ; and on another page are three portraits of their mother, also by 
 Cosway. Thus we have gathered together a group of family miniature likenesses — 
 the father and mother and their three children, all by the hand of an artist who 
 was excessively vain, of eccentric habits, of a curiously deranged mind, but a very 
 clever painter, and most highly appreciated at his own time, withal. 
 
 William, fifth Duke of Devonshire, was born in 1748, became Duke at the age 
 of sixteen, married first, in 1774, Georgiana, daughter of the first Earl Spencer, and 
 secondly, Elizabeth, daughter of the fourth Earl of Bristol, who survived him, but 
 left no children. He died in 1811. By his first marriage he had three children, 
 whose portraits we give : — 
 
 Georgiana Dorothy Cavendish, who was born in 1783, married in 1801 George, 
 sixth Earl of Carlisle, and died in 1858. [We have already given a miniature! 
 also by Cosway, of her husband’s sister, Lady Cawdor.] 
 
 Harriet Elizabeth Cavendish was born in 1785, and married in 1809 Granville 
 Gower (second son of the first Marquis of Stafford), who was created Viscount 
 Granville in 1815, and Earl Granville in 1833. She died in 1862. 
 
 William Spencer, who was born in 1790, became sixth Duke of Devonshire on 
 the death of his father in 181 1, and died unmarried in 1858. 
 
MINIATURES. 
 
 COSWAY. 
 
 Duchess of Devonshire is no stranger to this work. Photographs 
 three miniature portraits of her at Castle Howard, by unknown 
 ists, have already appeared. 
 
 These three sketches by Cosway, for they are little more than 
 sketches, charm us by their freshness and spontaneity. The artist, without any 
 attempt at disguise, has truthfully depicted the well-known nez retroiLssd which 
 gave much charm to the face of “the beautiful Duchess." Evidently, these minia- 
 tures were painted at different ages ; the one on our right was probably taken soon 
 after her marriage. 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 JUAN DE PAREJA. 
 
 VELAZQUEZ. 
 
 \N DE PAREJA, who was bom about 1606 at Seville (and not 
 s has frequently been stated in the West Indies) was, to judge from 
 is complexion, the son of a mulatto father and mother. At that time 
 laves were by no means uncommon in Andalucia, and a bondman 
 by birth, he became the property of Velazquez either by purchase or inheritance ; he 
 accompanied his master, who was his senior by seven years, to Madrid in 1623, and 
 remained with him ever after. Employed to pound the colours, prepare the 
 palettes, and clean the brushes, he soon acquired a great desire to become an 
 artist, but, through fear of Velazquez, who only allowed him tff perform menial 
 duties, he had to study by stealth, and it was not until he was forty-five years old 
 that he ventured to own to the king, Philip IV., that he was the author of a 
 painting which he had caused to attract that monarch’s attention. This gained him 
 his freedom and the entry into Velazquez’s studio as a pupil and not as a mere 
 servant. Pareja, however, continued to wait upon his master of his own accord, 
 and even after Velazquez’s death in 1660 he faithfully served his eldest daughter, 
 Francisca, who had married Martinez del Mazo, one of Velazquez’s most skilful 
 pupils and a most successful copyist of his father-in-law’s productions. 
 
 Pareja died in 1670, having survived his master ten years. He excelled in 
 portraiture, and Palomino makes special mention of his likeness of an architect 
 named Joseph Ratds, and says that it has frequently been taken for a work by 
 Velazquez. 
 
 Pictures by Pareja are rarely met with. The Madrid Gallery has but one, the 
 “ Calling of St. Matthew,” which, however, contains his own portrait represented 
 as a servant, holding a piece of paper, on which is his name, and the date 1661 ; 
 in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg, is a likeness of a Provincial of the Capuchins, 
 by him. At Castle Howard, there is a portrait of Queen Mariana of Austria, 
 seated in widow’s attire, attributed to Pareja, which Sir William Stirling-Maxwell 
 says is probably by Martinez del Mazo. 
 
 In the autumn of 1648, Velazquez, sent by his master Philip IV., started on a 
 
JUAN DE PAREJA. 
 
 second journey to Italy, for the purpose of collecting works of art for the Royal 
 Galleries and for the Academy which it was proposed to establish in Madrid. 
 Passing through Genoa, Milan, Padua, Venice, Bologna, Modena, Parma and 
 Florence, he arrived at Rome : there he received a commission from Innocent X. 
 to paint his portrait : this masterpiece is now in the Palazzo Doria, Rome ; a 
 replica of it is in Apsley House. 
 
 “ Before taking in hand,” Stirling-Maxwell tells us, “ the Sovereign Pontiff, 
 he threw off, by way of practice, a likeness of his servant Pareja. This portrait, 
 sent by the hand of the person whom it represented to some of his artist-friends, 
 so delighted them, that they procured Velasquez’s election into the Academy of 
 St. Luke. Pareja’s likeness — perhaps the fine portrait now in Lord Radnor’s 
 collection — was exhibited with the works of academicians in the Pantheon, on 
 the feast of St. Joseph, and was received with universal applause.” 
 
 Velazquez left Rome in 1651 : the portrait of Pareja was probably executed 
 in 1649 or 1650, when the slave was about forty-four years of age, about a year 
 before he acquired his freedom. There is nothing to prove whether it was the 
 Castle Howard picture or the replica at Longford Castle that was actually painted 
 by Velazquez in Rome. The latter was at the “ Old Masters ” Exhibition of 1873 ; 
 the former has never been publicly exhibited. 
 
 In this noble portrait, the jet black hair, brown skin, and brilliant eye of the 
 mulatto are admirably set off by the broad white collar and green velvet cloak. 
 
 On canvas, 2 ft. 5 in. by 2 ft. 
 
HAMPTON COURT. 
 
 ST. JOHN BAPTISING CHRIST. 
 
 FRANCIA. 
 
 |N his catalogue of the paintings at Hampton Court, Mr. Law says that 
 * this Picture “ must have been acquired by Charles I. with the Mantuan 
 collection ; for in an old Italian inventory of the Duke’s works of art, 
 dated 1627, we find it catalogued thus: 1 Uno quadro sopra asse con 
 N. S. battezzato da S. Giovanni, di mano del Franza.’ Between that date and about 
 thirty years ago, when it was discovered in a lumber room in this palace, there is no 
 record of it ; and it is likely enough that, in the turmoil of the Civil Wars, which 
 followed so soon after the Mantuan collection arrived, it had never been hung up.” 
 It was at the Manchester Exhibition (No. 132 in the catalogue) of 1857, when 
 M. Burger in his “ Trdsors d’Art en Angleterre,” after giving a description of it, says, 
 " Trfes-beau fond de paysage. C’est aussi fort que Pdrugin, ou que Raphael’ dans 
 sa premihre manihre.’ Dr. Richter, on the other hand, gives an unfavourable 
 opinion of this picture in his review of Mr. Law’s catalogue in the “Academy” 
 (No. 497) ; he says it is “ certainly, as I am ready to prove, a stiff copy of the 
 original at Dresden.” In spite of this, we have been tempted to give it in this work, 
 as paintings by this famous Bolognese master are not very frequently met with in 
 the private collections of England, although the National Gallery possesses by him 
 two altar-pieces, of one of which the predella, a Pieth, is a most wonderfully beauti- 
 ful production. At Manchester, there were but six pictures by Francia exhibited ; 
 at Leeds, in 1868, but five; and the thirteen “Old Masters” exhibitions at Bur- 
 lington House have produced only six works ascribed to him. 
 
 A picture similar to this but with some slight alterations in the details, is in 
 the Dresden Gallery. It bears the inscription Francia Aurifex Bon. f.m.v. viiii 
 [ I 5 ° 9 ]. and was executed when he was at the height of his fame. In 1508 he 
 had sent his portrait to Raphael ; in 1510 he was made one of the Gonfalonieri of 
 the People, and in the following year he was for the third time elected steward of 
 the Goldsmiths’ Guild, in his native Bologna. “This picture,” says Miss Julia 
 Cartwright, “ still retains its rich glow of colour in spite of injuries received from 
 splinters of a shell during the bombardment of that city [Dresden] in 1760.” The 
 Hampton Court picture has a bad crack down the right-hand side, which is plainly 
 discernible in the photograph. 
 
 Lady Taunton possesses a small predella (attributed to Francia), about a foot 
 
ST. JOHN BAPTISING CHRIST. 
 
 in height, of the same subject somewhat differently treated : St. John is pouring the 
 water over Christ, who stands up to his knees in the river. It was exhibited at the 
 British Institution in 1852, and at Manchester (No. 81 in the catalogue) in 1857 ; 
 on both occasions it was lent by the late Lord Taunton, then the Right Honourable 
 H. Labouchere ; it had formerly been in the Coningham collection. Dr. Waagen 
 and M. Burger both praise it, but Messrs. Crowe and Cavalcaselle say that “ the 
 hand of an assistant is seen in the execution.” 
 
 The picture before us is signed on a piece of paper in the left-hand bottom 
 corner, with the usual signature of the artist, Francia Avrifex Bonon, i.e. “ Frank, 
 Goldsmith of Bologna.” On his works in jewellery he wrote himself Francia 
 Pictor. In the same way, Orcagna was wont to sign his sculptures Andrea di 
 Cione, Pittore, and his paintings, Andrea di Cione, Scultore. 
 
 Francesco Raibolini, who was born at Bologna in 1450, was the son of a car- 
 penter. Before he became a painter, he had served in a goldsmith’s shop, and had 
 acquired great facility in all the branches of the art, coining money, designing 
 medals, working in niello, &c., and he was intimately connected with these arts 
 throughout his life ; he was thrice elected to the stewardship of the Goldsmiths’ 
 Guild, and he was early appointed by Giovanni Bentivoglio II. master of the mint, 
 and held that post till his death. Hence his signature, Aurifex or Aurifaber. 
 
 It is generally asserted that he acquired the sobriquet Francia from the name 
 of his goldsmith master. This is not the case ; Francia is, it has been pointed out, 
 a contraction of Francesco, not unusual in Italy at that time ; the very common 
 habit of calling this painter Francesco Francia is, therefore, decidedly illogical. 
 The form Francia appears to have been adopted as a surname by his sons, Giacomo 
 and Giulio, who signed their jointly-executed paintings J. J. Francia. 
 
 Mr. Redgrave, R.A., in the Royal Catalogue, says of the character of the letters 
 of the signature on this painting, “ In reference to Signor Panizzi’s pamphlet, to 
 show that Francia founded the beautiful types of the printer Aldus, it may be 
 remarked how closely the letters in the inscription agree in form with the types of 
 the Polipholo,” which was printed at Venice in 1499. Unfortunately the signature 
 on the photograph is too small to be discernible. 
 
 This painting, formerly No. 456, is now No. 307 in the Hampton Court Gallery. 
 
 On panel, 5 ft. 3 in., by 4 ft. 
 
WINDSOR CASTLE. 
 
 SIR PHILIP SIDNEY. 
 
 ISAAC OLIVER. 
 
 7IR PHILIP SIDNEY, soldier, poet, and statesman, the son of Sir 
 Henry Sidney, governor of Ireland and president of Wales, was born 
 at Penshurst on the 29th of November, 1554. He received his early 
 education at a school in Shrewsbury, where among his schoolfellows 
 was Sir Fulke Greville (afterwards Lord Brooke), his future biographer, who, on 
 his tombstone in Warwick church, is called “ Servant to queen Elizabeth, 
 Counsellor to king James and Friend to sir Philip Sydney.” 
 
 After completing his studies at Oxford and Cambridge, Sir Philip Sidney 
 set out in 1572 on a Continental tour. 
 
 Driven from Paris by the events of St. Bartholomew’s Day, he went through 
 Germany, Austria, and Hungary, to Italy, whence he returned to England in 1575- 
 Soon afterwards we find him established as a favoured courtier with Elizabeth, 
 and in 1576 employed as ambassador to the court of Vienna. His leisure time 
 was spent in pursuit of poetry ; his first attempt was the “ Lady of May,” a play 
 performed before the Queen at. Wanstead House. In 1580, on account of a repri- 
 mand received from Elizabeth, which was occasioned by a quarrel with the Earl of 
 Oxford, he withdrew from court and went to Wilton, the residence of the Earl of 
 Pembroke, the husband of his much-loved sister ; and there, and for her amusement, 
 he wrote his well-known, if little read, “Arcadia,” which was, however, never fully 
 completed by Sidney, and was not printed till 1590 ; this was followed, in 1581, by 
 his “ Defence of Poesie,” which was first published in 1595. In 1583 he married 
 Frances, daughter of Sir Francis Walsingham, and in thesame year received the 
 honour of knighthood. 
 
 Two years later he was only prevented by the Queen’s command from joining 
 Drake’s second expedition against the Spaniards in the West Indies, and it is said 
 the same power caused him to refuse the crown of Poland which it is supposed 
 was offered to him. Towards the close of 1585 he was made Governor of Flushing 
 and General of the Horse under his uncle Leicester, who was in command of the 
 troops fighting for the Dutch against the Spaniards. He served with much valour 
 and bravery, tempered by discretion beyond his years. But his service was of short 
 duration, for but ten months after his arrival he received a wound which caused 
 his death. On the 22nd of September, 1586, while commanding a detachment of 
 
 LI 
 
 FsFvlfv v r vN' 
 
SIP PHILIP SIDNEY. 
 
 the army, he met a superior force of the enemy marching to the relief of Zutphen 
 in Guelderland, which was being besieged by the English. He attacked them 
 vigorously, and ultimately succeeded in vanquishing them, but in his third charge 
 he was shot in the leg. It was while he was being carried from the battle-field, on 
 seeing a dying soldier look with longing eyes on the water he was about to drink, 
 that Sidney, giving it up to the thirsty man, said the oft-quoted words, “ Thy 
 necessity is yet greater than mine.” On the 7th of October, after two weeks of 
 suffering, he died at Arnheim, attended by his wife, who had followed him to the 
 war. Thus ended, before he had reached the age of thirty-two, the life of a man 
 who, ready with his pen, was no less ready with his sword when occasion required 
 a gallant soldier, a clever poet, and a true and honest gentleman. His only 
 child, a daughter, died without issue. 
 
 The birthplace of this renowned hero still exists. We may yet tread the 
 ancient halls of Penshurst, a house full of historic interest and poetic inspirations, 
 which was given, in 1552, to his grandfather, Sir William Sidney, by Edward VI.’ 
 on the attainder of its former owner, Sir Ralph Fane. 
 
 The building behind Sidney in the picture before us represents some part of 
 the mansion of Penshurst, or, more probably, a summer-house in the grounds. 
 
 Granger, in his “ Biographical History of England ” (where he mentions 
 engravings by Houbraken, Elstracke, Faithorne, &c., of portraits of Sir Philip 
 Sidney), thus refers to this miniature “ Sir Philip Sidney. I. Oliver, p. Vertue, 
 sc. 1745. From a limning of Dr. Mead’s ; whole length. Prefixed to the Sidney- 
 papers, published by Collins. In this print is a view of Penshurst in Kent, the 
 ancient seat of the Sidneys, which, at the time of its engraving, was in the 
 possession of William Perry, esq., whose lady was niece to the last Earl of Leicester 
 of that family.” The print, which is a fairly good rendering of the original, bears 
 the following inscription “From a curious Limning drawn by Isaac Oliver in the 
 collection of Dr. Richard Mead. The Right Honourable Sir Philip Sidney, 
 Knt. To William Perry of Penshurst, Esq., this plate is humbly inscribed by G. 
 Vertue, 1745.” 
 
 Full-length miniatures of Sir Philip Sidney are very rare : he is chiefly repre- 
 sented in bust portraits. There were four likenesses of him at the Miniature 
 Portrait Exhibition held in the South Kensington Museum in 1865 : one by Isaac 
 Oliver, lent by Mr. John Jones; a second ascribed to Isaac Oliver, lent by Mr. J. 
 Heywood Hawkins, and signed “ Anno Domini 1 586, ^Etatis sute 19 ” (the catalogue 
 says “ ? 29,” but, if 1586 be correct' — which is scarcely likely, as he was fighting in 
 Holland in that year till his death— the nineteen should be thirty-one) ; a third, by 
 an unknown artist, lent by Sir T. W. Holburne, Bart. ; and a fourth, lent by the 
 Reverend R. Symes, bearing the inscription “ Ano. Dni. 1582 ZEtatis suje 28.” 
 
 In addition to these the Duke of Buccleuch possesses a portrait of him by 
 Nicholas Hilliard ; and Lord de L’lsle and Dudley, the owner of Penshurst, has 
 another by Isaac Oliver, which represents him wearing a beard and with much 
 shorter hair than in the Windsor Castle picture. In Lodge’s “ Portraits ” is 
 given an engraving by E. Scriven of a portrait of him by Antonio. Moro in the 
 collection of the Duke of Bedford. 
 
 We have already published a reproduction of a miniature, at Castle Howard, 
 
 of the wife of Sir Philip Sidney, who was afterwards twice married to Robert 
 
 Devereux, Earl of Essex, and to the Earl of Clanricarde. 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 CHARLES LEWIS, COUNT PALATINE. 
 
 ATTRIBUTED TO VAN DYCK. 
 
 HIS portrait by Van Dyck belonged to the Orleans Gallery, and was 
 known in that collection as the portrait of James, Duke of York, after- 
 wards James II. In the text to the account of the “ Orleans Gallery” 
 (“Galerie du Palais Royal,” Paris, 1786-1808), it is pointed out that 
 the young duke was but eight years old when Van Dyck died, and it is suggested 
 that it may more probably be the portrait of Charles II., or a painting by Walker 
 in imitation of Van Dyck. 
 
 The painting of the hands appears to be by a pupil of Sir Anthony, but whether 
 by Walker or Dobson it would be impossible to determine. We have ventured to 
 re-name it Charles Lewis, Count Palatine, on account of the likeness which it bears 
 to Hollar’s engraving, of the year 1646, of Van Dyck’s painting of that personage, 
 representing him three-quarter length in armour, and more especially to the 
 unfinished head engraved by John Payne, also after Van Dyck. 
 
 Besides these, there are, amongst other engraved portraits of him, one, a bust 
 in an oval, signed “Cor Meyssens fe . Viennae . Anno 1663"; another, also a 
 bust, by W. J. Delff, after Mierevelt ; a third, a large head, by C. Visscher, 
 engraved in 1650 after Honthorst ; and a fourth by W. Vaillant, of the year 1656, 
 which represents him with a sword in one hand and a crown in the other. 
 
 Charles Lewis was the second of the eight sons of Princess Elizabeth, 
 daughter of James I., by Frederick V. Born in 1617, and educated at Leyden, he 
 first visited England when eighteen years of age. This portrait was probably 
 painted about this time ; he had already received the Order of the Garter from 
 King Charles, his uncle. 
 
 Alone, of all the Royal family, and in striking contrast to his younger brother 
 —the gallant Rupert — he turned traitor to the king, and actually sat in what was 
 called the Assembly of Divines at Westminster ; nor did his mean-spirited conduct 
 end here, for he was unnatural enough to neglect his own mother in her necessities. 
 His character was that of a selfish schemer, and it is not a little curious to re- 
 member that he was the direct ancestor of the infamous “ Egalitd,” Duke of 
 Orleans, whose career and character strongly resembled that of the Count Palatine. 
 Charles Lewis was restored to the Lower Palatinate in 1648 upon condition that 
 he gave up all right and title to the Upper. He died suddenly on the road between 
 Manheim and Frankendal, aged sixty-three, in 1680. 
 
 On canvas : oval, 4 ft. 4 in., by 3 ft. 
 

ALTHORP. 
 
 BARTOLOME ESTEBAN MURILLO. 
 
 MURILLO. 
 
 E cannot do better than quote the account which Mrs. E. E. Minor 
 gives of Murillo s portraits of himself in her biography of him in the 
 “ Great Artists ” series : — 
 
 The portrait of Murillo has been rendered tolerably familiar by 
 engravings. . The most popular is that painted by himself in his youth, and left by 
 his will to his sons, of which we give a copy as frontispiece. It was formerly in 
 the collection of Don Bernardo Iriarte at Madrid ; and then, passing through the 
 galleries of Don Francisco de la Barrera Enguidanos and Mr. Julian Williams, came 
 into the possession of King Louis Philippe, at whose sale in 1853, it was pur- 
 chased by Mr. Nieuwenhuijs, who subsequently sold it to the late Baron Selliere: 
 it remains in the possession of his family. According to the then prevailing 
 fashion, it appears as if painted on a stone slab which rests upon another ; a 
 later hand has inscribed upon the edge of the latter his name, with the date’ of 
 his birth and death: ‘Vera effigies Bartholomaei Stephani d Murillo Maximi 
 Pictoris Hispali nati anno 1618 obiit anno 1682 tertia die mensis Aprijis.’ It has 
 been engraved by Blanchard, by Albuernein 1790, by Sichling, and by H. Adlard 
 in Stirling’s ‘ Annals.’ There is also an engraving by Alegre and Carmona which 
 resembles this portrait in features ; in it the artist is represented three-quarter 
 length, with his left hand resting on a drawing and with a crayon-holder in his 
 right. 
 
 “ Then, of a later period there is a portrait, showing him with a careworn 
 expression and wearing a white collar edged with lace, painted at the request 
 of his children, in the possession of Earl Spencer at Althorp, inscribed— 
 
 ‘ Bart“ s Murillo seipsum depingens pro filiorum votis acprecibus explendis.’ This 
 painting was formerly in the possession of Lord Ashburnham, at whose sale in 
 1850 it was purchased by Lord Spencer for 790 guineas, and is believed to be the 
 original from which the copy by Miguel de Tobar in the Madrid Gallery was taken. 
 
 It is, in all probability, the portrait which was engraved by Richard Collin, of 
 Brussels, in 1682, the year of Murillos death. Collin’s print is almost identical 
 
BARTOLOME ESTEBAN MURILLO. 
 
 with the Althorp picture, except that the hand disappears behind the oval frame 
 instead of resting on it as in the painting, and the inscription is on a slab instead 
 of a scroll. 
 
 “ This painting, which has recently been etched by C. O. Murray in the 
 ' Portfolio ’ (1877), was exhibited at the British Institution in 1855, at Manchester 
 in 1857, at Leeds in 1868, and at the South Kensington Museum in 1876-79. 
 
 “ An engraving by Calamatta of Murillo’s portrait, taken from a painting then 
 in the Aguado Collection, which was sold in 1843, exactly resembles the Althorp 
 picture, except that it is represented in a plain oval. Two other engravings of 
 portraits of Murillo exist : one by Edward Scriven, in 1834, shows the artist with 
 a palette and brushes, and the other, by Benedetto Eredi, is in a plain oblong ; but 
 neither resembles at all closely either of the above authentic portraits. 
 
 Proofs of all the above-mentioned engravings may be seen in the British 
 Museum. 
 
 “ The genuineness of the so-called portrait of himself by Murillo in the Buda- 
 Pesth Gallery, showing a much older man, has been doubted ; it has been etched 
 by P. Rajon. 
 
 “ Mr. William Marshall, in 1857, exhibited at Manchester a so-called portrait 
 of Murillo, which he purchased at the Standish sale in 1853.” 
 
 The life of this famous Spanish painter is too well known to need mention 
 at our hands. 
 


WINDSOR CASTLE. 
 
 MINIATURES. 
 
 JOHN HOSKINS, ISAAC OLIVER AND ALEXANDER COOPER. 
 
 E here give the portraits of the Countess of Somerset (the “poisoning 
 Countess,” as she has been called) and her two husbands. 
 
 Frances, daughter of Thomas Howard, first Earl of Suffolk and 
 Catharine Knevet, first married at the age of thirteen the Earl of 
 Essex, from whom she obtained a divorce in 1613 in order that she might marry 
 Lord Rochester, who was then made Earl of Somerset. In 1616 she and her 
 husband were tried and convicted of the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury who 
 had died three years before. They were confined in the Tower, but received a 
 pardon in 1622. The countess died ten years later. 
 
 Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex, the only son of Elizabeth’s favourite 
 minister, was born in 1592. In 1603 his father’s forfeited honours were restored 
 to him by James I., and at the early age of fourteen he was married to Lady 
 Frances Howard, from whom he was divorced shortly afterwards. His second 
 marriage, to a daughter of Sir William Paulet, also ended in a separation. In 
 1620 and 1625 he served under the Elector Palatine against Holland ; he was 
 for some time vice-admiral, and afterwards held command in the army under 
 Charles I., but in 1642 he became General of the Parliamentary Forces, and took 
 action against the king. He died in 1646. 
 
 Robert Car, or Ker, the son of a Mr. Ker of Farnherst in Teviotdale, was in 
 1610 introduced (by Lord Hay, it is said) to the notice of James I., who imme- 
 diately took him into favour, made him Knight of the Bath, and in the following 
 year created him Viscount Rochester, and on his marriage in 1613 made him 
 Earl of Somerset. He died in 1645. 
 
 George, third son of Sir George Villiers, was born in 1592. He became first 
 favourite with James I. after the disgrace of Somerset; and was created succes- 
 sively Viscount Villiers, Earl, Marquis, and, finally — in 1623, while he and Prince 
 Charles were on their journey in Spain— Duke of Buckingham : and on his return 
 honours were showered upon him by the king. He was assassinated at Ports- 
 mouth on the 24th of August, 1628. 
 
 James Stuart, son of Esme, Duke of Lennox, was born in 1612, and was 
 created second Duke of Richmond in 1641 (the first duke had died in 1624). He 
 was one of Charles I.’s most faithful adherents, and was one of the four noblemen 
 who offered their lives to save the king. After the execution of Charles he retired 
 abroad, where he died in 1655, it is said of a broken heart. Mr. W. H. Pole 
 Carew has a half-length portrait of him by Van Dyck ; it was at the National 
 Portrait Exhibition in 1866. 
 
 Lucius Cary, the second Viscount Falkland, celebrated in literature, politics, 
 and war, was born 1610, married Letitia, daughter of Richard Morrison, Esq., of 
 Tooley Park, Leicestershire, became Member of Parliament for Newport, Isle of 
 Wight, in 1640, and Secretary of State two years later. He fought at Edgehill 
 and Gloucester, but lost his life at Newbury in 1643. 
 
lexander Cooper, By Isaac Oliver. 
 
THE VIRGIN AND CHILD WITH SAINTS 
 AND DONORS. 
 
 MEMLINC. 
 
 |HE fine triptych, of the centre-piece of which we give a reproduction, 
 has been in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire for upwards of 
 a hundred years. For a long time doubts existed as to its authorship, 
 and in 1866 it was shown at the National Portrait Exhibition at 
 South Kensington as by “ Van Eyck or Hans Mending.” The late Dr. Wolt- 
 mann, writing in the “Fortnightly Review” (Sept. 1st, 1866), said “it is painted 
 by neither of the Van Eycks, but by Mending,” and since then it has been univer- 
 sally ascribed to this artist. The arms which hang on the pillars were long believed 
 to be those of the Cliffords, but they have now been recognized as belonging to 
 the Donnes ; and the picture is supposed to have been painted while Edward IV., 
 accompanied by Sir John Donne, who was one of his suite, was in Bruges, whither 
 he had gone to escape from the Earl of Warwick. As Edward left England in 
 October, 1. 47 °. and returned in the March of the following year, it was probably 
 painted between those dates. 
 
 It was exhibited again at the “Old Masters” in 1876, when there was a very 
 long account of it in the “ Athenaeum,” which called it “ one of the most important 
 works ” of the exhibition, and quoted a description, by Mr. Weale, which we give : — 
 
 “ In the centre, seated on a brass fald-stool, beneath a canopy, and with a rich cloth of honour behind 
 her, is the Blessed Virgin. She sustains with her right hand the Infant Christ, seated on her knees, and in 
 her left holds the Book of Wisdom open. Our Lord has been turning over the leaves, on which his left hand 
 still rests, though He is looking away and stretching out his right hand to an angel, who offers him an apple, 
 and holds a violin and bow in his left. Another angel, on the left of the Madonna, is playing on a portable 
 organ. On the right of the throne St. Catherine, and on the left St. Barbara, present the donors, Sir John 
 Donne and his wife Elizabeth, third and youngest daughter of Sir Leonard de Hastings, by his wife Alice, 
 daughter of Thomas Lord Camoys. Both these personages wear the badge of Edward the Fourth, the collar 
 of Roses and Suns, to the clasp of which is appended the White Lion of the House of Marche. Behind the 
 lady kneels a little girl. These figures are represented in a cloister, the carved capitals of which are adorned 
 with shields bearing — azure , a wolf salient argent , langued gules, Donne ; and parted per pale, ist Donne, 2nd 
 argent , a maunch sable , Hastings. The background, painted with great care and wonderful finish, is formed 
 by a most beautiful undulating landscape : on the right is a river with swans and a water-mill ; the miller, 
 with a sack of corn on his back, is about to enter his house, close behind him an ass ; a man is crossing a 
 bridge, at one end of which is a tower ; farther on are a man on horseback, a cow, a man in red on a white 
 horse, about to enter a wood.” 
 
 
THE VIRGIN AND CHILD WITH SAINTS AND DONORS. 
 
 The writer in the “ Athenaeum,” after quoting Mr. Weale, goes on to say : — 
 
 The introduction of the mystical apple, as above, is frequent in votive pictures like this, which was pro- 
 bably given by Sir J. Donne and his wife to some important church, possibly in England, whence, at the 
 dissolution of the monasteries, it passed into lay hands again. ... St. Catherine has her two-hand sword, 
 and is clad in the robes Memlinc was fond of painting, a just-au-corps of royal red, a white sideless cSte- 
 hardie, a voluminous petticoat of black and gold, brocaded ; the whole worn under a cerulean mantle 
 fastened at the bust by a jewel. Her sword is a masterpiece of crisp missal-like painting. The lady 
 and child, on their own part, kneel demurely smiling with an expression of content and happy piety which 
 is touching. The introduction of minute incidents, as in the background here, is characteristic of Memlinc 
 as those know who remember the large altar-piece in St. John’s Hospital at Bruges, where there is a vista 
 of the Vlaminc Street in Bruges, with the huge town crane and the gaugers measuring wine-barrels on the 
 quay. Similar details occur in the ‘ Chasse de Ste. Ursule.’ This is evidently an early picture. The style 
 agrees with the above-named assumed date, for it is more essentially Gothic in character than the large altar- 
 piece just mentioned, or the other pictures in the Hospital of St. John, and is approached with a less degree 
 of • Gothicity,’ i.e., it may be associated more closely than any of these with the types of the Van Eyck school, 
 by the picture at Munich, executed c. 1480.” 
 
 Crowe and Cavalcaselle, in their “Early Flemish Painters” (2nd ed., 1872), 
 thus describe this work: — 
 
 “ The Chiswick Madonna is better preserved [than a Madonna now in the collection of the Comtesse 
 Duchatel in Paris], and, if possible, more refined in feeling. It represents the Virgin enthroned in a porch 
 receiving homage from the kneeling Sir J ohn Donne, his lady (in a peaked cap), and their numerous children 
 [sic] protected by St. Agnes and St. Barbara. In the landscape outside the porch are a water mill, a miller, 
 a cow, and swans, the favourite distance which adorns Madonnas at the Uffizi and Worlitz, and a por- 
 trait in the gallery of Antwerp, catalogued under the name of Antonello. With his usual grace in depicting 
 slender and high-born womanhood Memling excels in this picture as a painter of dress and accessories ; 
 and none of his creations are more conspicuous than this for the finish and transparency of cloths, veils, and 
 ornament.” 
 
 On the interior of the wings are the two St. Johns : on the exterior, in 
 monochrome, St. Christopher and St. Anthony. 
 
 On panel : centre-piece, 28 in. by 28 in. ; each of the wings, 28 in. by 12 in. 
 
DOWNE HALL. 
 
 THE PIPING BOY. 
 
 HUGH ROBINSON. 
 
 E have already given a short account of the career of this young artist ; 
 but since then three other interesting paintings by him have come to 
 light. They are family portraits in the possession of the Reverend 
 C. P. Peach, Vicar of Appleton-le-Street, near Malton — the first, a 
 three-quarter length of the Reverend John Cleaver, Vicar of Malton, Hugh 
 Robinson’s birthplace ; a second, of his son, the Reverend J. J. Cleaver (who after- 
 wards took the name of Peach), as a boy of ten years old standing with one arm on 
 the neck of his pony ; and his daughter (afterwards Mrs. Bell Livesey) when about 
 eight years of age, sitting on the ground holding a bird above her head out of the 
 reach of a spaniel who endeavours to get at it. The girl’s portrait was done in 
 1781 ; that of the boy in 1784, and they possess, it is said, great charm of feature 
 and colouring. 
 
 Dr. Cleaver (the grandfather of the present possessor of the pictures) was a 
 true friend to Robinson ; he gave him, as we have seen, commissions for portraits, 
 and he further interested himself in his behalf by joining with Sir George 
 Armytage and Sir George Beaumont, the well-known art patron and amateur 
 painter, in sending the youthful artist to study in Italy. This kindness Robinson 
 fully appreciated ; he wrote from Rome, saying that he intended one of his best 
 works as a present for Dr. Cleaver. 
 
 The boy represented in the painting before us, who reminds us of Sidney’s 
 Arcadian “ shepheards boy piping, as though hee should never be old,” was 
 employed by Hugh Robinson to prepare his canvas and grind his colours. The 
 picture was exhibited at the recent exhibition (1882) of works by the “ Old 
 Masters,” when, curiously, another “ Piping Boy,” that by Sir Joshua Reynolds, 
 was lent by Sir George Philips. 
 
 Mr. Monkhouse, in the “Academy,” said “ It seems hard that, after a 
 hundred years of oblivion, the two fine works of Hugh Robinson which have 
 been sent to the ‘ Old Masters ’ exhibitions by Mr. Teesdale (one last year and one 
 this) should not have been hung on the line. It is true that they are large and 
 simple in design, and do not require close inspection to reveal their merit ; but it 
 
THE PIPING BOY. 
 
 would have been interesting to examine more nearly the handling of an artist so little 
 known, who, as a youth, painted these remarkable works when Reynolds and Gains- 
 borough were at the zenith of their fame — works which, if they recall somewhat of 
 the feeling of the latter artist, are original in style and execution. ‘The Piping 
 Boy ’ is a charming composition, sober but sweet in its colour, excellent in drawing, 
 perfectly simple and natural, without a touch of the false rusticity which Gains- 
 borough affected, or the forced expression which Sir Joshua so often gave to similar 
 subjects. When we know that it was painted before the artist was twenty-four, 
 and that all the pictures he painted after he arrived at that age were lost in the sea 
 about the fime of the artist’s death, it is plain that opportunities of examining his 
 work cannot frequently occur.” 
 
 It is much to be regretted that this work of the talented young Yorkshireman 
 should have been hung in a position totally inadequate to its evident merits. The 
 photograph may, in a slight degree, help our readers “ to examine more nearly the 
 handling of the artist ” than the hanging at Burlington House permitted. It 
 may be noticed that the foliage shows a similarity in treatment to the work of 
 Robinson’s contemporary Romney. 
 
 On canvas, 3 ft. 3 in. by 4 ft. 1 in. 
 
WINDSOR CASTLE. 
 
 THE FAMILY OF RUBENS. 
 
 FRUYTIERS. 
 
 HIS is the second family of the great Flemish painter, by his wife 
 Helena Fourment, whom he married in 1630, and who bore him five 
 children ; Clara Joanna in 1632, Frans in 1633, Isabella Helena in 
 J 635 > Peter Paul in 1637, an< I Constantia Albertina (who was born 
 after her father's death) in 1641. It is probably the four eldest that are here repre- 
 sented ; and the painting was, we should imagine, executed in 1639, when the 
 young Peter Paul, who contentedly rides a hobby horse, was aged two ; he holds by 
 the hand his immediate senior, Isabella Helena (christened after both the wives of 
 her father), of four summers, who is preceded by the two eldest, Clara Joanna and 
 Frans, aged respectively seven and six, who walk along with a primness and self- 
 sufficiency typical of their youthful age. The young cavalier, with his hat and 
 sword, bids fair to develop into a handsome man such as Van Dyck loved to paint. 
 
 The woman who is leaning forward stretching out her right hand bears a 
 sufficiently strong resemblance to the known portraits of Helena Fourment to 
 warrant us in assuming her to be the children’s mother ; the other female is pro- 
 bably a nurse. Of the career of these children little has been recorded. Frans— 
 who was held at the baptismal font by Francis of Moncada, Marquis of Aytona, 
 Governor of Belgium— married Susan Gratienne Charles, and died in 1678; his 
 son Alexander Joseph married Catharine Philippina van Parys. It was a Jean 
 Baptist van Parys, Canon of the Church of St. Jacques, Antwerp, and a descendant 
 of Rubens, who put up in 1755 the epitaph to the great painter in the chapel in 
 the choir in St. Jacques, which also contains the remains of his two sons, Frans 
 and Peter Paul. The third child, Isabella Helena, died in 1652, Peter Paul in 
 1684 ; the youngest became a nun. 
 
 Works by Philip Fruytiers are rarely met with ; his name is seldom found in 
 catalogues. Lord Stafford has a group of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, his 
 Countess Aletheia, and their children — the joint work of Fruytiers and Van Dyck 
 It is painted in distemper on vellum, and bears the signatures “An. Vandyke inv.” 
 and “ Ph. Fruytiers fecit, 1642.” It was exhibited at the National Portrait 
 Exhibition at South Kensington in 1866. 
 
 Born at Antwerp in 1625, Fruytiers first painted in oils and afterwards in 
 miniature, in which he was very successful, and in gouache; he also obtained 
 renown for his engravings, chiefly of portraits. He died at Antwerp in 1660. 
 
 “He understood,” says Nagler, “how to represent his figures in pleasing 
 postures and well draped, and also graceful in expression. Even Rubens praised 
 his colouring, and this celebrated artist had himself as well as his family painted 
 by Fruytiers. Weyerman saw this picture, and mentioned it with great com- 
 mendation.” Whether the miniature, at Windsor Castle is the one referred to, we 
 are unable to determine for certain. 
 
_,.ivy,»- . . •. 
 
POPE INNOCENT X. 
 
 VELAZQUEZ. 
 
 7 IR WILLIAM STIRLING MAXWELL, who mentions five portraits 
 of Innocent X. by Velazquez, apparently did not know of this fine example 
 at Chiswick ; to us it appears equal, if not superior to the far-famed one in 
 the Palazzo Doria (formerly Pamfili), Rome, which was painted during 
 the artists second visit to Italy, 1649-51, and of which several replicas exist. One 
 is at Apsley House (it was exhibited at the British Institution in 1828) ; another is 
 in the Marquis of Bute’s collection in Eccleston Square ; a third is at Cawder 
 House, Lanarkshire : that in the possession of the Marquis of Lansdowne is a 
 mere copy. In addition to these, there is a study of his head, formerly in the 
 Houghton Gallery, and now in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg, which is believed 
 to have been the original study for the Doria picture. This study has been mezzo- 
 tinted by Valentine Green in 1774, and engraved by J. Fittler in 1820. There 
 are also engravings of this pontiff by C. Warren and J. B. P. Le Brun. 
 
 The Chiswick picture is easily distinguished by the uplifted right hand from 
 the others, where the pope is seated holding a letter in his left hand, with 
 his right resting on the arm of a chair. In the South Kensington Museum 
 is a fine bronze bust of him, executed — by Alessandro Algardi, or possibly 
 by Bernini — probably before he ascended the papal throne in 1644, in his seventy- 
 fourth year. As Mr. Stowe, in his life of Velazquez, well says, it is “ suggestive 
 of majestic dignity and high intellectual faculties, qualities which we fail to discern 
 on the more truthful canvas.” Innocent X. died in 1655. 
 
 The following is the account given by Sir William Stirling Maxwell, in his 
 “ Velazquez and his Times,” of his portrait : — 
 
 “ Innocent X., Giovanni Battista Panfili, the reigning pontiff, preferred his 
 library to his galleries, and was so keen a book-collector, that, when cardinal, he 
 was accused of enriching his shelves by pilfering rarities which he could not 
 purchase. He was, however, also a patron of art, and one of the five popes that 
 caressed Bernini, whom he employed to complete the labours of ages by erecting 
 the beautiful colonnade of St. Peter’s.” He also, in 1650, built the Palazzo 
 Pamfili in the Piazza Navona (not the Pamfili-Doria which is in the Corso) from 
 the designs of Girolamo Rainaldi. “ When Velazquez arrived at Rome, he 
 
 
 W: 
 
 
POPE INNOCENT X. 
 
 granted him an audience, and commanded him to paint his portrait ; and the task 
 being executed to his entire satisfaction, he presented the artist with a gold chain 
 and medal of himself. The holy father, a man of coarse features and surly 
 expression, and perhaps the ugliest of all the successors of St. Peter, was painted 
 sitting in his easy chair ; and the portrait was no less effective than that of 
 Admiral Pareja ; for it is said that one of the chamberlains, catching a glimpse of 
 the picture through an open door leading from the antechamber, cautioned some 
 of his fellow-courtiers to converse in a lower tone, because his holiness was in the 
 next room. Of this portrait Velazquez executed several copies, one of which he 
 carried to Spain. The original is probably that which remains in the Pamphili- 
 Doria palace at Rome : a fine repetition is now in the collection of the duke of 
 Wellington at Apsley House.” 
 
 On canvas, 2 ft. 9} in. by 2 ft. 4 in. 
 
;v v >« * **'"' • 
 
BRIDGWATER HOUSE. 
 
 THE INFANT SAVIOUR DREAMING OF 
 HIS PASSION. 
 
 GUIDO RENI. 
 
 HIS beautiful little picture, in perfect condition, formerly belonged to 
 the Orleans Gallery, from which it was purchased by the Duke of 
 Bridgwater for 300 guineas. It is engraved, in reverse, by Le Villain 
 in the “ Galerie du Palais Royal,” and it is thus noticed in the text 
 of that descriptive catalogue of the Orleans Gallery : — “ Guido Reni que nous 
 nommons Le Guide, aimoit a traiter les Sujets de ddvotion : ils dtoient les plus 
 conformes a son caractere. Cet Artiste s^avoit rdunir k la grandeur, a la noblesse 
 des iddes, cette mdlancolie douce, cette grace touchante, qui caractdrisent ses pro- 
 ductions. On voit ici, dans un Desert, Jesus Enfant endormi sur la Croix, auprds 
 de laquelle sont les instrumens de la Passion ; pensde mystique que Ton remarque 
 souvent dans les Ouvrages du Guide. Ce Tableau qui n’est composd que dune 
 seule figure, est intdressant par la suavitd du Pinceau, la puretd des contours, et 
 l’effet harmonieux du clair-obscur, partie essentielle que Le Guide a cependant 
 ndgligde quelquefois.” It has been engraved by Heath in the “ Stafford Gallery.” 
 This composition has been repeated by Guido in pictures of a larger size, as 
 well as by several of his disciples and contemporaries. Gandolfi engraved a similar 
 picture in the Armani Collection in Venice. 
 
 On copper, 9 in. by 1 1 in. 
 

CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 FREDERICK HOWARD, FIFTH EARL OF 
 
 CARLISLE. 
 
 REYNOLDS. 
 
 HIS picture was painted in 1769, in which year the Royal Academy held 
 their first exhibition and Reynolds received the honour of knighthood. 
 Lord Carlisle was then in his twenty-first year ; he had been invested 
 with the order of the Thistle at Turin in the previous year, and Sir 
 Joshua has introduced the green velvet robes with effect. The attitude is a 
 favourite one of the artist, and is the same as that seen in his fine portrait of 
 Admiral Keppel. It is melancholy to compare this portrait with the mezzotint by 
 William James Ward, done in 1823, for not only has the picture been cleaned, but 
 the face has been entirely repainted by the ruthless restorers. The bituminous 
 surface had, as in many of Reynolds’s portraits, become a mass of cracks and 
 fissures ; these had to be filled up, and the process adopted appears to have been 
 to clean off the entire surface of the ground, thereby removing all the brilliant 
 carnations of the face, and then to repaint the head without even attempting to 
 imitate the original. 
 
 The bust-portrait of the earl by Reynolds, also at Castle Howard, painted 
 probably about the same period, and which has never been engraved, proves how 
 much the head in this picture has been altered. 
 
 There are yet two more portraits of Lord Carlisle by Reynolds at Castle Howard. 
 One represents him as a boy of twelve years old, clothed in a pale plum-coloured 
 suit, standing in a landscape with a dog ; and in the other (where he also wears the 
 star and ribbon of the Thistle) he is accompanied by George Augustus Selwyn, 
 with whom he was on terms of the greatest intimacy, notwithstanding the thirty 
 years difference in age. 
 
 No one could have sat thus frequently to Sir Joshua without having become a 
 friend of the great painter. Lord Carlisle was very firm in his attachment, and he 
 gave a proof of his fidelity to Reynolds on the occasion of the President’s rupture 
 from the Academicians in 1790, when a paper war of addresses and poetic effusions 
 
FREDERICK HOWARD , FIFTH EARL OF CARLISLE. 
 
 was waged against and in favour of Reynolds. Lord Carlisle’s poem begins with 
 much spirit : — 
 
 “ Too wise for contest, and too meek for strife, 
 
 Like Lear, oppress’d by those you raised to life. 
 
 Thy sceptre broken, thy dominion o’er, 
 
 The curtain falls, and thou art King no more.” 
 
 In conclusion he conjures him not to leave the Presidential chair : — 
 
 “ Accept again thy pow’r — resume the chair — 
 
 Nor leave it till you place an equal there ! ” 
 
 If Lord Carlisle had never written worse lines than these he would not have 
 given his cousin Lord Byron the opportunity of which he cruelly availed himself. 
 
 Frederick, fifth Earl of Carlisle, who was born in 1748, succeeded to the 
 Earldom in 1758. After a somewhat dissipated youth (even for a young nobleman 
 of the days of Sheridan and the Prince of Wales) he married, in 1770, Lady 
 Margaret Caroline Gower, daughter of the first Marquis of Stafford, and settled 
 down into a respectable country gentleman, filled offices of great importance 
 and trust with honour if not with marked success, and left behind him, to quote 
 the words of Thackeray, “ descendants occupying high stations and embellishing 
 great names.” On his death, in 1825, he was succeeded by his son George 
 Howard, sixth Earl of Carlisle, whose portrait, painted when he was a boy of 
 thirteen, by Sir Joshua, has already been given in this work. 
 
 On canvas, 7 ft. f in. by 4 ft. 9} in. 
 
ftV*. 
 
CHISWICK HOUSE. 
 
 PORTRAIT OF A CHILD. 
 
 ALONSO SANCHEZ-COELLO. 
 
 HIS charming fair-haired little girl is dressed in a red boddice, trimmed 
 with gold-coloured wavy bands and scallops, apparently appliqud 
 work of braid and knotted cord. She wears a plain red cloth skirt, 
 and linen apron, ruff and cuffs, bordered and edged with reticella and 
 merletti a piombini. Her white petticoat is evidently embroidered with black silk 
 in a style of sixteenth century work, which is supposed to have been called Spanish 
 stitch. 
 
 The picture bears on its frame the palpably incorrect name of Velazquez. 
 Though we rob it of its claim to be the work of that great master, we have, 
 at the suggestion of Dr. Richter, ascribed it to an artist of little less interest, and 
 one whose works are especially rare in England, Alonso Sanchez-Coello, usually 
 miscalled Coello. 
 
 In the collection of Lord Northbrook, in Hamilton Place, hang two pictures 
 of precisely the same size and the same character as this — a little boy and a little 
 girl, both, like the child before us, doing nothing in particular. Each of the 
 three is placed in a room without any accessories to detract from the interest 
 of the figure, and all three seem to be somewhat amused at the idea of having 
 their portraits painted. 
 
 That of the boy, done on canvas, bears the undoubted signature of Sanchez- 
 Coello : Alfonsris fancius F. 1577. He is about five years old, and still wears a 
 skirt. His dress is white, chequered patterned, trimmed with gold ; round his neck 
 hangs a red heart-shaped locket. In his right hand he holds a toy spear, in his 
 left a hobby horse, which has more animation in the head than one is wont to 
 see in such-like animals now-a-days. As in the Chiswick picture, there is an 
 opening to the left which shows a balustrade and a glimpse of distance ; his 
 red shoes just peep out from beneath his skirt ; the floor is of dull red brick. 
 The flesh tones are rather pale. A similar chequered-pattern dress occurs in 
 Sanchez-Coello’s portrait of Dona Isabel Clara Eugenia, daughter of Philip II., 
 in the Madrid Gallery. 
 
PORTRAIT OF A CHILD. 
 
 The little girl, who may well be his sister, and who bears a strong resemblance 
 to our little girl in red, is painted on panel and is apparently unsigned. A rosy- 
 cheeked maiden with light hair and dark eyes, she stands clad in a dark green dress 
 trimmed with dull red and gold braid. In her right hand is a rose ; another is in 
 her hair. She wears an apron, cuffs and collar of white lace, and red coral bracelets, 
 and a small cross suspended by a chain. 
 
 There has not been a single work by this artist shown at the “ Old Masters” 
 Exhibitions, and Lord Northbrook’s portrait of a boy is the only picture by him 
 mentioned in the “Art Treasures” of Dr. Waagen, who calls it a “Portrait of a 
 sickly-looking child, probably an Infant of Spain, in a splendid white patterned 
 dress.” “ I am acquainted,” he goes on to say, “with too few specimens of this 
 master, who is seldom seen out of Spain, to pronounce as to the correctness with 
 which this is named. The truth, however, of every portion, and the ease of the 
 execution, are worthy of the high reputation as a portrait-painter which Coello bore 
 at the court of Philip II." Dr. Waagen evidently looked at this picture hurriedly, 
 for Sanchez-Coello’s undoubted signature is most distinctly to be seen on the side 
 of the window-opening. 
 
 Born at the village of Benifayro in Valencia about 1513, this artist, the first 
 of Spain’s great portrait-painters, is said to have formed his style on Italian 
 models. But little is known of his early life. In 1541 he was living at Madrid, 
 where he married; and in 1552 he went to Lisbon and was employed to paint 
 portraits of members of the royal family. He subsequently became very famous 
 at Madrid for his portraits and sacred pieces. He was painter-in-ordinary to 
 Philip II., who held him in high esteem, and round his table were frequently 
 gathered together princes, prelates, statesmen and warriors of renown. He is 
 well represented in the Madrid Gallery, and works ascribed to him are occasionally 
 found in the public collections on the Continent : but many of his best pictures 
 perished by fire in the Prado and Alcazar of Madrid. Sanchez-Coello died at 
 Madrid in 1590. 
 
 On canvas : 3 ft. 5 in. by 2 ft. 7 in. 
 

 
 
 titt if. vwmww r. va v • . > 
 
DEEPDENE. 
 
 A VILLAGE FESTIVAL 
 
 WOUWERMAN. 
 
 HIS painting, of that most prolific artist Wouwerman, was formerly in 
 the Braamkamp collection; on the dispersion of which, in 1771, it 
 was sold for ^ 343 - 11 was exhibited at the British Institution in 
 
 1815, and, under the title of a “ Village Merry-making,” at the 
 “ Old Masters” Exhibition at Burlington House in 1881. 
 
 Smith, who valued it at 800 guineas, said it is “ an excellent picture, painted 
 in the artist’s second manner ; full of variety and interesting detail.” It is No. 87 
 in his Catalogue Raisonnd, which records no less than 793 works by this artist. 
 It is signed with the painter’s usual monogram, Philips W — the Philips connected. 
 It has been engraved by Scott. 
 
 On canvas, 1 ft. 1 is in. by 2 ft. 9! in. 
 
MINIATURES. 
 
 After VAN DYCK and attributed to PETER OLIVER. 
 
 |N this miniature after Van Dyck’s often-repeated portrait, Algernon 
 Percy, tenth Earl of Northumberland, is represented wearing the 
 ribbon of the garter ; the sea, with a fleet or naval engagement, is seen 
 in the background. A portrait, by Van Dyck, of him and his second 
 wife, Elizabeth Howard (daughter of Theophilus, second Earl of Suffolk), and their 
 child, was exhibited by the Marquis of Salisbury at the National Portrait Exhibi- 
 tion at South Kensington in 1866, when the Earl of Essex lent a full-length portrait 
 of him, also by Van Dyck. This miniature is evidently copied from the head in 
 Lord Salisbury’s picture, of which there is a replica at Petworth House. 
 
 Lord Northumberland was made Lord High Admiral by Charles I. in 1637, 
 but he forsook the royal cause and took part with the Roundheads. He, however, 
 did all he could to prevent the King’s execution, and he later favoured the 
 Restoration. He died in 1668. By his first wife, Anne, daughter of William 
 Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, he had five daughters : we give the portrait of Elizabeth 
 with her husband. 
 
 The Countess of Chesterfield, here represented, is either Elizabeth Butler 
 (daughter of James, first Duke of Ormonde, and second wife of Philip Stanhope, 
 second Earl of Chesterfield, whose first wife was a daughter of the tenth Earl of 
 Northumberland), who was one of the many frail beauties of the Court of Charles 
 II., and whose name often figures in De Grammont’s Memoirs, or else Catherine, 
 daughter of Thomas, Lord Watton, with whom Van Dyck is said to have been in 
 love. This miniature bears some likeness to a portrait of Lady Elizabeth Butler, 
 by Sir Peter Lely, in the possession of Earl Stanhope. 
 
 Thomas Flatman, a briefless barrister, was by inclination a poet and an artist. 
 He was born in London about 1633, was called to the bar, but apparently never 
 practised, published a volume of “ Poems and Songs ” in 1674, painted miniatures, 
 and died in London in 1688. “ One of his heads,” Granger tells us, “ is worth a 
 
 ream of his Pindarics,” and again, “A man must want ears for harmony that can 
 admire his poetry, and even want eyes that can cease to admire his painting. 
 
MINIATURES. 
 
 Pope is said to have copied several of his verses in his ode of “ The Dying Christian 
 to his Soul. Of his art, Redgrave says, “ His works are somewhat larger in scale 
 than those of his predecessors, and he used more body-colour. They are a little 
 after Coopers manner, but deficient in his refinement of drawing, expression, and 
 finish, and are greatly behind him in grace, though they are far from wanting in 
 merit, and are highly esteemed.” Whether this portrait of him is by his own hands 
 or that of Cooper we cannot say. The Countess Delawarr lent to the National 
 Portrait Exhibition of 1866 his own portrait done by himself: and in the Dyce 
 Bequest at the South Kensington Museum is a young-looking autographic portrait 
 which was evidently the original of Godefroy’s engraving (published in 1794 
 by W. Richardson the printseller, who then owned the miniature), which is marked 
 Ipse pinxit 1661. Hayls’s portrait of him has been engraved by Robert White 
 and by A. Walker. In Dallaway’s edition of Walpole’s “Anecdotes” (1827), 
 is an engraving of him by W. C. Edwards “ from an original drawing by Sir Peter 
 Lely in the possession of the publisher, ”• John Major. 
 
 Arthur Capel, first Earl of Essex, filled the post of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 
 from 1672 to 1677, with great justice and prudence, and succeeded Danby in the 
 Privy Council and became first Commissioner of the Treasury. He was com- 
 mitted on a charge of high treason, and was found in the Tower with his throat 
 cut, on the 13th July, 1683. His wife was Elizabeth, daughter of Algernon Percy, 
 Earl of Northumberland, and by her he had a family of seven children, only two 
 of whom lived to maturity, Algernon and Anne. The latter married Charles 
 Howard, third Earl of Carlisle ; and it is doubtless through her that this fine 
 miniature, probably by Peter Oliver, is now at Castle Howard. 
 
 Algernon Percy, 
 
 Earl of Northumberland. The Countess of Chesterfield. Thomas Flatman. 
 
 After Van Dyck. 
 
 Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, 
 and 
 
 the Countess of Essex. 
 Attributed to Peter Oliver. 
 

MARQUIS OF BUTE'S COLLECTION. 
 
 PORTRAIT OF A LADY. 
 
 FLINCK. 
 
 R. WAAGEN, who noticed Lord Bute’s collection when it was at Luton 
 House, did not mention this excellent painting, which bears the signature 
 H £ flink f. 
 
 After mounting the stairs in Eccleston Square between walls lined 
 with paintings of more or less interest, one’s eyes are greeted on the topmost storey 
 by a kindly smile from this Dutch lady who would surely speak to us if she could. 
 
 To use a well-worn but expressive phrase, the portrait is most life-like, and one 
 can only regret that history is silent as to the name of the good lady it represents. 
 If it be the aim of portraiture to catch the eye and rivet the attention, this likeness 
 of an ordinary Dutch V roww t clad in a simple black dress with white ruff and cap, has 
 well succeeded. It is almost worthy of Frans Hals or of Flinck’s friend and 
 master Rembrandt, whom he approached as nearly as any of his pupils. 
 
 Born at Cleves in 1615, eight years after Rembrandt— Govert Flinck, in com- 
 pany with Jacob Backer, first studied under Lambert Jacobsz at Leeuwarden, and 
 then, about 1632-34, entered Rembrandt’s atelier in Amsterdam, in which city he set 
 up for himself when he was about twenty-one years of age. In 1637 he painted 
 Rembrandt’s portrait. He received the freedom of the city in 1652 and died there in 
 1660. He was twice married — first, in 1645, to Ingetje Thovelings of Rotterdam, 
 who died four years later, and secondly, in 1656, to Sophia van der Couven of Gouda. 
 
 He sometimes painted sacred pictures and genre pieces, but he is chiefly famous 
 for his portraits, which are frequently done in groups of regents of hospitals, 
 members of archery companies, and such like corporations — paintings which were 
 commonly in demand in the Netherlands in his day. Some of his later pictures 
 are painted in an Italian style ; he also successfully imitated Murillo. 
 
 On panel : 2 ft. 8 in. by 2 ft. 
 

HE right title of this work, which is sometimes called “ Un Cavalier” or 
 “ Le Capitaine,” is “ Suffisance.” It was painted in 1861, the date of 
 the artist’s election to the Academy and of some of his best efforts, such 
 as the “ Battle of Solferino.” At the sale of Prince Paul Demidoff’s 
 collection in Paris in May, 1864, it was purchased by the Marquis of Hertford for 
 £ffio, and is now the property of Sir Richard Wallace, who also possesses several 
 other masterpieces by M. Meissonier — and among them two or three other examples 
 of his power of throwing a whole story into a single figure — as the “ Punchinello ” 
 (a reproduction of which we have already given), another Cavalier, a Sentinel, and a 
 Musqueteer, all of which were exhibited with the rest of Sir Richard Wallace’s 
 pictures at Bethnal Green in 1872. 
 
 From their similarity of subject and of title, it is somewhat difficult to dis- 
 tinguish individual pictures of this class by M. Meissonier, but we imagine this 
 work to be that which, under the title of “ Le Capitaine,” appeared in 1862 at an 
 exhibition in the “Cercle del’Union Artistique,” and again at the Universal Exhi- 
 bition in Paris in 1867, and which is described by Mr. Mollett in his life of Meissonier 
 as “ a veteran officer in military costume of the 17th century, descending a baronial 
 staircase, with an air of familiarity and swagger in the highest degree humorous.” 
 Suffisance, or Self-satisfaction, is a descriptive epithet supererogatory to a 
 picture which can speak for itself as this does. Suffisance is already written on the 
 painting from the pose of the leg to the upward curl of the nostril. 
 
ttyt* 1 
 
 
 vYYtfyyyyyy y 
 
 BSSBBmSBSm 
 
 r >t _ 
 
 ;w®9* ,l ‘ Jl ' iJ ®IB 
 
 CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 tl 
 
 OM I AH. 
 
 
 REYNOLDS. 
 
 §HIS fine full-length portrait is the best preserved Sir Joshua at Castle 
 Howard ; it represents Omiah, or Omai, a native of Otaheite, who was 
 brought to this country by Captain Furneaux in the “ Adventure ” 
 in 1774 : during the season of that year he became the lion of the 
 day, was presented at court, dined with the wits and beaux of London, played at 
 chess with Baretti, and sat in 1775 to Reynolds, who had the good taste not to 
 paint him in the English uniform and pigtail which Omiah affected when he visited 
 Cambridge, or the reddish-brown coat and breeches which he wore at Hertford. 
 This decision of Sir Joshua was probably greatly to the discomfort of Omiah, who 
 appeared determined to conform to all European customs, with the exception of 
 taking snuff, which when offered to him he declined, remarking that his nose was 
 “ not hungry.” 
 
 The picture at Castle Howard was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1776, 
 a year in which several good works were shown by Sir Joshua : it was mezzotinted, 
 in 1777, by Johann Jacobd, an engraver of Vienna, who visited England and 
 reproduced works of Reynolds and Romney. 
 
 Dance also painted a portrait of Omiah, which has been engraved. 
 
 On canvas, 7 ft. 9 in., by 4 ft. 10 in. 
 
 ■ 
 
 

..... 
 
CASTLE HOWARD. 
 
 FRANS SNYDERS. 
 
 VAN DYCK. 
 
 pHIS picture,” writes Waagen, “was painted in the Netherlands shortly 
 before Vandyck came to England [in 1629]. The noble conception, with 
 which a slight trace of melancholy is blended, the admirable drawing, 
 (for instance, the foreshortened ear,) the masterly modelling, the gra- 
 dation in a warm, clear, yellowish tone, nearly akin to that of Rubens, and the 
 simplification of the forms, render this not only one of the very finest portraits by 
 Vandyck, but entitle it to rank with the most celebrated portraits by Raphael, Titian, 
 or Holbein.” 
 
 This glorious portrait belonged to the Orleans Collection, and there is an 
 engraving of it by Lerouge and Dequevauvillier in the “Galerie du Palais Royal.” 
 It was acquired by Lord Carlisle for the paltry sum of 400 guineas : it is now 
 worth at least as many thousands. The companion likeness, by Van Dyck, of the 
 wife of Snyders, is at Warwick Castle. 
 
 Snyders’s portrait, engraved by Jakob Neefs, is one of the finest of that fine 
 collection of portraits of celebrated men — Van Dyck’s “ Centum leones.” 
 
 Frans Snyders was born at Antwerp in 1579, studied under “ Hell ” Brueghel, 
 and also under Van Balen the elder. In 1592 he entered the guild of St. Luke, 
 was free of it ten years later, and subsequently became, in 1619, a member of the 
 Romanists. In 1611 he married Margaret (sister of the painters Cornelis and 
 Paulus de Vos), who died in 1647. Snyders himself died in 1657, and was buried 
 by her side in the Church of the Rdcollets, Antwerp. 
 
 Snyders was a friend of Rubens and Jordaens, and frequently painted animals, 
 fruit, or flowers, in their pictures. His favourite subjects were boar-hunts and such 
 like scenes, and in the representation of animals he is second only to Rubens ; 
 he was also most successful in painting dead game and groups of fruit and flowers. 
 Though his pictures are frequently seen in the private galleries of England, he is 
 unrepresented in our National Collection. 
 
 He was about forty-eight years old when he sat to Van Dyck for this portrait. 
 
 On canvas, 4 ft. 8 in., by 3 ft. 3^ in. 
 
... . . 
 

MARQUIS OF BUTE'S COLLECTION. 
 
 A MERRY MAKING. 
 
 G. VAN HERP. 
 
 RANCOIS XAVIER DE BURTIN, writing in 1846, speaks of Van 
 Herp as “ trds bon peintre, dldve de Rubens,” and adds, “ II est rest£ 
 longtemps inconnu, par la raretd de ses signatures.” He is but little 
 better known now; his -works are extremely rare in England as well as 
 on the Continent, where his name is seldom met with in catalogues. 
 
 The Marquis of Bute has two pictures by Van Herp ; the Earl of Ellesmere 
 has two, and the National Gallery one ; there is a “ Cow-stall ” at Nostall Priory ; 
 the Earl of Caledon has an “ Interior of a Church,” by Van Delen, in which the 
 figures are said to be by Van Herp ; and in the Dulwich College Gallery is ascribed 
 to him “ Figures with Sheep at a Well,” which has been engraved by R. Cockburn. 
 These pictures almost exhaust the list of works by Van Herp in England. 
 
 Of this painter but little is known ; even his Christian name is a matter of 
 doubt. Nagler calls him Gerard; Waagen, Geritz ; and Mr. J. A. Crowe in his 
 edition of Kugler’s “ Handbook” (1874), says on the authority of the Liggeren of 
 the Antwerp guild that his name is William, but he undoubtedly signs himself 
 G. V. Herp on the painting before us (in the left-hand bottom corner), and on the 
 right-hand bottom corner of the painting in the possession of the National Gallery. 
 This, with other works withdrawn from exhibition at Trafalgar Square, is at present 
 deposited in the Circulation department of the South Kensington Museum. It 
 seems a pity that there is not sufficient room to hang it in our National Collection. 
 
 G. van Herp was born at Antwerp about 1604, and was apprenticed twice in 
 that city — first to Darman Wortelmans in 1626, and secondly to Hans Birmans in 
 1628. He died in 1677. He is said to have studied under Rubens. Waagen calls 
 him indiscriminately an imitator of Teniers and a disciple of Rubens. His style is 
 evidently based on the works of the latter rather than those of the former ; as 
 Kugler says, “ his colouring, however, has never the power and depth of his master,’ 
 so far, at least, as we have been able to judge. His colouring compared to Rubens 
 
A MERRY MAKING. 
 
 is as the moon to the sun — bright and clear, but never so powerful. Nagler tells us 
 that in his mythologic pictures he availed himself of engravings, and the Berlin 
 Museum possesses (though it does not exhibit) a picture of “ The Peasant and the 
 Satyr,” painted by him from a composition by Jordaens. But in the picture before 
 us he is truly original in composition, and in treatment — though fully in sympathy 
 with his Netherlandish contemporaries. It is brightly lighted, yet all the colours, 
 though of many hues, are of a low tone. The woman at the top of the step with 
 the dish in her hand wears a red dress and green skirt ; the gallant accosting her 
 has brick-red stockings. The man pulling her apron is clad in a grey suit : behind 
 him a woman in a yellowish dress dances with a man with a black cap, feather and 
 jacket. The man seated with his back to the spectator has red sleeves and buff 
 stockings. A dame clad in pink presides at the table, on which a white cloth nearly 
 covers a blue one. The boy on her left and the man who holds a glass with vine- 
 leaves out of his reach are both in grey, as is the smoker who wears yellowish stock- 
 ings. The lady on his right has a greyish jacket, trimmed, with earrings, and a 
 reddish-yellowish skirt. Blue and green pottery, copper jugs, and metal plates and 
 dishes add bits of brightness to a painting which is really brimful of light. The 
 dogs and cat are somewhat of the nature of “ accessories.” 
 
 The companion picture in the Marquis of Bute’s Collection is of a similar 
 subject. In it, however, the people seem to address themselves more seriously to the 
 subject in hand — feeding. 
 
 The picture belonging to the National Gallery (No 203), which is on panel, and, 
 curiously, exactly the same size as the work before us, was bequeathed to the nation 
 by Mr. R Simmons in 1846. It is a composition of twenty-one figures, five monks 
 and sixteen women and children. The monks are placed on the steps of their mon- 
 astery, with a portico of a church in the background. Two are distributing bread 
 to the poor, who crowd eagerly round for it ; one brings a fresh basketful, whilst a 
 fourth is going indoors for more. Amongst the recipients of alms is a negress. A 
 blind beggar advances with the same stage-like stride as the figure in the extreme 
 left of our picture. 
 
 On copper, 2 ft. 7 in. by 3 ft. 9 in. 
 
Wmmmmm 
 
CHISWICK HOUSE. 
 
 THE ALCHEMIST. 
 
 TENIERS. 
 
 HIS was a favourite subject with that most prolific of artists, David 
 Teniers, Court Painter, Groom of the Chamber, and Custodian of the 
 Picture Gallery to the Archduke Leopold William, and afterwards to 
 Don Juan of Austria. 
 
 He treated almost every subject, from a simple knife-grinder to the most 
 hideous of goblins, with success — always excepting those paintings which he drew 
 from sacred sources; and his pasticcio s also display great technical ability. 
 
 In Smith’s Catalogue Raisonne there are no less than twenty-one alchemists 
 enumerated in the long list of his works, but, although several of the descriptions 
 are very similar, none agrees entirely with the picture before us. 
 
 In paintings of this nature, Teniers is perhaps seen at his best, affording as 
 they do many opportunities for an ample display of his facile dexterity in the 
 representation of varied lights playing on the polished surfaces of pots and pans, 
 crucibles and bottles, and other articles of an alchemist’s laboratory ; and, containing 
 but a few figures, they do not show that want of diversity in the treatment of the 
 human form which is to be observed in some of his more elaborate compositions. 
 
 This subject was, Kugler tells us, no doubt chiefly suggested to the mind of 
 Teniers by the search for the philosopher’s stone which prevailed at his time. 
 
 The painting is signed d teniers f. 
 
 On canvas, 2 ft. oi in. by 2 ft. 4I in. 
 
HAMPTON COURT. 
 
 ELIZABETH HAMILTON, AFTERWARDS 
 COUNTESS DE GRAMMONT. 
 
 LELY. 
 
 A BELLE HAMILTON,” as she was popularly called, seemed, as 
 Mrs. Jameson says, “ to have been placed in Charles’s court purposely 
 to redeem the credit of her sex.” She was one of the few bright 
 spots in the domestic history of that court. She rejected all advances 
 from the Duke of York and others, and refused offers of marriage from many 
 wealthy peers and men of high position, till she at last surrendered to the 
 Chevalier de Grammont, who was “ frivolous, worthless, heartless, inconstant, a 
 selfish epicure, a gambler, a sharper, a most malicious enemy, a negligent friend, 
 and a faithless lover ; ” but, at the same time, “ gay, gallant, polished in his address, 
 and elegant in his person.” 
 
 The eldest daughter of Sir George Hamilton, fourth son of James first Earl 
 of Abercorn — she was brought up in France, and only came to England when her 
 father returned home after several years of residence in that country. She entered 
 the gay court under very favourable auspices : she was taken up by her aunt the 
 Duchess of Ormonde, and soon became a favourite with the Duchess of York and 
 the Queen. Then — in the words which her then lover and subsequent husband 
 dedicated in his world-famous “ Mdmoires ” many years after to her brother Anthony 
 then “ Elle dtoit grande et gracieuse jusques dans le moindre de ses mouvemens. 
 
 Sa bouche dtoit pleine d’agrdmens, et le tour de son visage dtoit parfait. Un 
 petit nez ddlicat et retroussd n’dtoit pas le moindre ornement d’un visage tout 
 aimable.” 
 
 With all this admiration, the Chevalier had almost to have this prize thrust 
 upon him. On being recalled at the close of 1663 by Louis XIV. after six or seven 
 years of banishment, he hastened to leave England without so much as a thought 
 for his fiancee. Overtaken at Dover by the lady’s angry brothers, and being 
 asked, “Chevalier de Grammont, n’avez vous rien oublid k Londres,” he coolly 
 replied, “ Oui, j’ai oublie d’dpouser votre soeur,” and then returned to London and 
 
ELIZABETH HAMILTON , AFTERWARDS COUNTESS DE GRAMMONT. 
 
 fulfilled his engagement. A few years later, in 1669, the Chevalier and his bride 
 left England and returned to France, where the famous beauty, though held in 
 high esteem by the Queen, was none too popular with the ladies of the court, but 
 it was probably only jealousy that caused Madame de Caylus to dub her “ Anglaise 
 insupportable.” Philibert, Comte de Grammont, died in 1707, aged eighty-six. 
 His widow, who did not survive him long, left two daughters. The elder married 
 Henry, Lord Stafford, the younger became an abbess of a convent in Lorraine. 
 
 This portrait, done about the year 1660, is the generally acknowledged chief 
 of the famous series of “ Windsor Beauties,” which were painted by Lely for the 
 Duchess of York. They have hung at Hampton Court since their removal 
 from Windsor about the beginning of this century. There were originally eleven, 
 but only nine can now be recognized for certain. All, though displaying great 
 technical dexterity, unfortunately bear evidence of having been “ done to order," 
 and make us think that Lely would have earned a higher title in the roll of art, if 
 he had lived in a time more favourable to its true advancement. 
 
 Lely in this case is said to have been enchanted with his subject ; he did his 
 utmost, and succeeded admirably in rendering the flesh tints and the play of light 
 on the drapery ; but this portrait, like many of the artist’s works, is artificial. It, 
 however, created a great impression upon the Duke of York, who saw it in the 
 artist’s studio. 
 
 Miss Hamilton is, after the fashion of the day, represented with the attributes 
 of a saint. — Catherine of Alexandria. The dress is red, the scarf of gold brocade ; 
 her complexion is fair, and her hair light chestnut. This painting is the only one 
 of the “ Beauties ” that bears the artist’s signature : his monogram of P. L. is in 
 the upper right-hand corner. It was exhibited at Manchester in 1857, when it was 
 noticed by Burger as “ une des plus charmantes en peinture,” and at the National 
 Portrait Exhibition of 1866. 
 
 It has been engraved by Watson and by Thompson, and mezzotinted by 
 McArdell : and an engraving, of the head only, by E. Scriven accompanied the 
 edition of the “ Mdmoires” which appeared in 1811. 
 
 In the National Portrait Gallery is a three-quarter length portrait of the 
 Countess de Grammont, also by Lely, but of later date than the Hampton Court 
 picture, a copy of which by John Giles Eckhardt is also in the National Portrait 
 Gallery. 
 
 On canvas : 4 ft. 1 in., by 3 ft. 4 in. 
 

vYVV'Ttai 
 
 WSKtS^SSB^^BBSSSSBBSS^ 
 
 MARQUIS OF BUTE'S COLLECTION. 
 
 HEAD OF AN OLD MAN. 
 
 GERARD DOU. 
 
 ) HIS fine portrait, which is No. 139 in Smith’s Catalogue Raisonnd, is 
 in a good state of preservation ; it is very fresh and free in its execu- 
 tion, and at the same time displays the artist’s well-known high finish. 
 This white-haired old man of thoughtful countenance is clothed in a 
 brown cloak trimmed with brown fur ; and the lowness of tone of the picture is 
 relieved by the introduction of a small piece of red table-cloth. 
 
 Waagen justly says that there is “ something unusually noble in this piece.” 
 It is one of many proofs to be found in England that the old Dutch painters, while 
 striving after perfect finish and technical excellence, did not, so long as they kept 
 clear of sacred subjects, lose sight of the true aims of art. So careful and pains- 
 taking an artist was Dou, that, though he worked incessantly for forty years and 
 more, he left at his death only about two hundred paintings. 
 
 This work, which is at present exhibited, with many others of the Marquis of 
 Bute’s pictures, at the Bethnal Green Museum, is signed Gdov. 
 
 On panel, 1 1 in. by 8f in. 
 
 : 3 
 
 mmmmsm 
 
 

 
 
 
WINDSOR CASTLE. 
 
 MINIATURES. 
 
 W. ROBINS AND OTHERS. 
 
 LIZA FARREN, daughter of Mr. George Farren of Cork, was 
 born in 1762, and became successful as a comic actress : in 1797 she 
 married Edward, 12th Earl of Derby. She died in 1829. She sat 
 
 to, amongst other artists, Cosway and Sir Thomas Lawrence. A 
 
 miniature by the former was lent by Mr. Carruthers to the Miniature Exhibition 
 at South Kensington in 1865, and a full-length portrait of her by the latter was at 
 the National Portrait Exhibition of 1867, lent by the Earl of Wilton. 
 
 Margaret Woffington, who was born in Dublin in 1720, made her ddbut on 
 the stage in that city. In 1738, she appeared at Covent Garden in “Sir Harry 
 Wildair,” and took the town by storm, by means of her beauty and the liveliness of 
 her acting; and soon became the rival of Mrs. Cibber and Mrs. Bellamy. In 
 1757, she was seized on the stage by paralysis; she retired to Teddington, where 
 she was famous for her charities. She died in 1760. 
 
 Peg Woffington sat to Sir Joshua Reynolds, who painted her as “ Penelope,” 
 to Vanloo, to Zoffany, to Hogarth, to John Giles Eckhardt, and to Arthur 
 Pond. A portrait of her by the last-named has recently been acquired for 
 the National Portrait Exhibition. 
 
 Colley Cibber, born in London in 1671, and elected to the dignity of Poet 
 Laureate in 1730, was an author of considerable success as a writer of comedies, 
 but his poetic talents were of so meagre a nature as to make it difficult for us 
 to understand why our forefathers considered him worthy of that honour. As 
 a youth of seventeen he had joined the volunteer forces raised by the Earl of 
 Devonshire in aid of the cause of the Prince of Orange, but he soon gave up the 
 career of a soldier for that of the stage, having become so passionately attached to 
 the drama as to offer his services as an actor gratuitously. 
 
 However, with all his ardour, he does not appear to have attained any great 
 proficiency even in this profession, and he was glad to supplement his earnings, 
 after his marriage with a Miss Shore, by writing and adapting plays, some of 
 which exhibit much talent and were exceedingly popular. 
 
 For nineteen years, from 1711 till his appointment as Poet Laureate, he was 
 joint-owner and manager of Drury Lane Theatre. He died in 1757. 
 
 He was forty-four years old when he sat for this portrait in 1715. Whether 
 the W. Robins, whose name is to be seen on this miniature, is identical 
 with William Robins, the mezzotint engraver who flourished about that date, 
 we are unable to say. The engraver is the only artist of the name mentioned in 
 Redgrave’s Dictionary. 
 
HAMPTON COURT. 
 
 FRANCOIS DE VALOIS, DAUPHIN OF 
 
 FRANCE. 
 
 FRANQOIS CLOUET. 
 
 RANCOIS, eldest son of Henri II. and Catherine de Mddicis, married 
 in 1558, when only fifteen years of age, the ill-fated Mary Stuart, and 
 became King of France in the following year. His reign, rendered 
 very stormy by the quarrels of the Guises with the King of Navarre 
 and the Prince de Condd, was of short duration, as he died on the 5th of 
 
 December, 1560. 
 
 The following account of this portrait of him by Clouet is taken from Mr. 
 Ernest Law’s catalogue of the paintings at Hampton Court : — 
 
 “ Less than life, seen to the elbows ; turned towards the right, but the face seen 
 nearly in full. He wears a black doublet, laced with gold braid in front ; and with 
 lappets at the shoulders. His collar is high up his neck, and trimmed with a small 
 wavy-pleated frill. His cap, which is a little on one side to his left, is ornamented 
 with gold buttons and pearls, while a white feather hangs over his right ear. His 
 eyes are brown, his nose somewhat aquiline, and his cheeks very fat. Painted on 
 a dark olive-green ground. 
 
 “ That this was in Charles I.’s collection we may conclude from the fact of A 
 Francis the Ilnd, King of France by Gennett, valued at .£40,’ which had belonged 
 to him being found at the Restoration in the possession of a certain John Cade, 
 who had to give it up [Hist. Commissioners' Report , 1879). But it is not traceable 
 in Charles I.’s own catalogue; though we do find ‘a limning of Janet’s doing’ of 
 the Dauphin, of which the description accords with this, and which, with its 
 companion miniature of Mary Queen of Scots, is still preserved at Windsor. The 
 critics— Waagen, Niel, Feuillet de Conches, Mrs. Mark Pattison, Gaedeke, &c.— 
 are all unanimous in pronouncing this a fine, and indeed one of the finest, original 
 works of Franqois Clouet (Janet). 
 
 “ It represents Francis when Dauphin, about the age of fourteen, and is there- 
 fore intermediate between the two drawings in the ‘ Bibliothfeque Nationale’ at 
 Paris, reproduced in Niel’s Portraits .” 
 
 We have already given a portrait (from the Hertford House Collection) of his 
 
FRANCOIS DE VALOIS, DAUPHIN OF FRANCE. 
 
 Queen, whose loyal love helped to brighten for two and a half years a life rendered 
 dreary by illness, and who is said to have been almost prostrated with grief at his 
 death. She remained in retirement for about six months; when, in August, 1561, 
 she left France for ever. It is said that Charles IX., on looking at Mary’s portrait, 
 was wont to exclaim, “ Ah ! Francis ! — happy brother ! though your life and reign 
 were so short, you were to be envied in this, that you were the possessor of that 
 angel, and the object of her love.” The young widow composed a most touching 
 poem on her loss, of which we give two characteristic verses : — 
 
 “ Ce qui m’estoit plaisant, 
 
 Vies m’est peine dure, 
 
 Le jour le plus luisant 
 M’est nuit noire et obscure ; 
 
 Et n’est rien si exquis 
 Qui de moy soit requis. 
 
 “J’ay au cceur et a l’ceil 
 Un portrait et image, 
 
 Qui figure mon deiiil 
 Et mon pale visage, 
 
 De violettes teint, 
 
 Qui est l’amoureux teint.” 
 
 A portrait of Francois II. by Clouet, somewhat similar to this work, is in the 
 Antwerp Gallery, and another is at Althorp. At Windsor Castle are two minia- 
 tures attributed to Francois Clouet, of Francois II. and his wife — on “ blew card 
 grounds ” — of which we have already given reproductions. In the miniature, 
 in which he has lost his fatness of face, Francois is evidently older than in the 
 painting at Hampton Court, which appears to us to represent rather a boy of 
 ten than a youth of fourteen, as Mr. Law calls him. 
 
 In addition to the two drawings in the Bibliothbque Nationale in Paris, there 
 are at Castle Howard two more, attributed to Janet, and inscribed Le fen roi 
 framqois 2 e . estamt d'auphim, and Le Roy franqois segond. At Castle Howard, 
 too, is a painting by Janet, in which appear Francois II., his mother, and his two 
 brothers, Charles and Henri. 
 
 Francois Clouet was court painter to Francois II., as he had been to 
 Francois I. and Henri II., and as he afterwards became to Charles IX. 
 
 On panel, 1 ft. by 9 in. 
 

 * 
 
 
 # * 
 
MARQUIS OF BUTE'S COLLECTION. 
 
 WINTER SCENE. 
 
 VAN DER NEER. 
 
 \ N this collection there are two skating scenes by Aart van der Neer. 
 The larger one, which was exhibited at the “ Old Masters ” Exhibition 
 in 1870, is called by Waagen “a masterpiece in keeping and in clear 
 delicate tone,” and he adds that the smaller work — the one before us — 
 is “ of similar merit.” 
 
 Pictures by Van der Neer are commonly met with in public and private collec- 
 tions in England and on the Continent- They usually represent landscapes with 
 water lighted by the moon or the rays of the setting sun, and are frequently, as in 
 this case, winter scenes. 
 
 Of his life, little is known. He was born at Amsterdam, probably in 1619, and 
 he is said to have died there in 1683. 
 
 A landscape by him, in the National Gallery, which contains figures and cattle 
 byAelbert Cuijp, proves that he worked in conjunction with that master. 
 
 On canvas : 
 
 by 2 ft. 
 

* vrrxjfilXYS 
 
 
 WINDSOR CASTLE. 
 
 MINIATURES. 
 
 OZIAS HUMPHREY. 
 
 H H ARLOTTE-SOPH I A, Princess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, afterwards 
 the wife of George III., and the mother of the most numerous family 
 that ever clustered round a British throne, was born in 1744, and 
 became Queen-Consort of England in 1761. 
 
 From many contemporary sources, but principally from the pages of Miss 
 Burney’s famous Diaries, we learn much respecting the character of Queen 
 Charlotte, both in her treatment of her children and her management of the royal 
 household, in which Miss Burney held the apparently light, but actually arduous, 
 post of Keeper of Her Majesty’s Robes. 
 
 Though of somewhat domesticated habits, and very fond of needlework, in 
 which she excelled, the Queen was not without a taste for literature, and 
 some of the pleasantest pictures of her life at court are those entries in Miss 
 Burney’s “ Memoirs ” which relate to her reading aloud some French classic poem 
 or modern play while her royal mistress was seated at her embroidery frame, or in 
 the hands of her hair-dresser, or tire-woman. 
 
 Queen Charlotte died respected and regretted in 1818, two years before her 
 husband, of whom we also give a portrait. 
 
 Ozias Humphrey, a native of Honiton, and a pupil of Samuel Collins at Bath, 
 where he practised for some time, was, in 1766, soon after his arrival in London, 
 patronized by the King, who commissioned him to paint portraits of the Queen and 
 other members of the Royal Family. He quickly rose in public favour, became 
 associate and full member of the Royal Academy ; and — with the exception of a 
 visit to Italy, which he paid in company with Romney, and a three years’ sojourn 
 in India, whence ill-health drove him home — he spent many years in painting 
 miniatures with much success, till in 1792 failing sight compelled him to relin- 
 quish such minute work in favour of crayons, with which he also achieved renown ; 
 he was appointed portrait-painter in crayons to the King. He attempted painting 
 on a large scale in oil, but without success. 
 
 
 
■. -. A : 
 

 ' V- 
 
 « * (r*r t ** 
 
 . *| • . * *.» 
 
 $ 4 * 
 
 • 
 
 • u 4 * 
 
 • t : #' • 
 
 
 » • 
 
 • » 
 
 « • w Hi 
 
 
 
 W'» * 
 
 ■ •_ 
 
 I 
 
 
 * . 
 
 ■:* 
 
 I 
 
 * » 
 
 « 
 
 
 '+ « 
 
 m 
 
 
* -'vj 7 
 
 4 4 i 
 
 > $M£& 
 
 SlW4f/ 
 
 « V^yJ 
 
 > s xV‘ 
 
 e* > >m v^-^ rr 
 
 § 
 
 #M 
 
 >vV'^4 ,t& P 
 
 m $&J/ . 
 
 #’1 
 
 '4e^? M 1