The miniature collector; a guide for the amateur collector of portrait miniatures

Front matter

mm

A GUIDE TO COLLECTORS OF OLD PORTRAIT MINIATURES

THE LIBRARY

Preface

SOME apology is surely needed from me, for inflicting yet another book about miniatures upon a longsuffering public ; but I hope that this latest work may fill the position that is at the moment vacant/ and may supply information that is needed. My chief excuse for it consists in the fact that new material bearing on this, my special subject, is constantly being discovered, and I have here endeavoured — to use a familiar expression — to bring the science up to date. Investigations in archives and records quite often bring to light new facts about miniature painters and their doings, and as an example, there is information in this book concerning Nicholas HiUiard and the gold mines of Scotland, in which he is actually described as Queen EHzabeth's portrait painter, that has only been brought before the pubhc notice in the Rhind lectures delivered by Mr. Warrach during the past few months, having hitherto been buried in the dry pages of a scarce reprint (issued in 1815) of a precious Elizabethan document. Of one miniature painter, who is here described, practically all the information given is new. It has been gleaned from his ledgers, which have lately come into my own possession, and I believe that the list of his sitters, which forms an appendix, may be found of service in identifying many of his miniatures, which at present are

^ " How to Identify Protrait Miniatures " went out of print this year.

vi PREFACE

unknown, or have been wrongly attributed to some other artist.

I have not hesitated to refer to some problems as to certain miniature painters, which still await solution, and I have given, I hope with impartiality, the arguments on either side, while I have not scrupled to declare to which I adhere. In the chapter on forgeries, I have, for the first time, put into cold print certain of the methods I have for years adopted in endeavouring to determine the authenticity of the miniatures that have been submitted to me, and I have gone, at some length, into an account of the pigments used by the various artists and of the methods that can be adopted for their identification. It has seemed to me to be right that the material that after many years of experience I have been able to gather together for my own use, should be placed at the disposal of others, especially as one is unable to hand on purely personal experience or insight and can only assist the collector in coming to an opinion for himself.

In the Bibliography, I have adopted a somewhat different plan from that I have used in other books, and have given some information as to the importance, or contents, of the books in question, to guide any future purchasers. Above all, it has been my desire, in accordance with the wish of the editor of this series, to make the book one of practical value, to give the information in simple language, avoiding as far as possible, technicahties, or the jargon of a collector, and thus to produce a work which will be useful, I venture to hope, to the person commencing to collect, and will yet not be scorned by those who already own a collection, and desire to know more about the artists who were responsible for their treasures.

The illustrations have been selected in order to give a good idea of the work of the different artists. Many of them have not appeared hitherto in any work on miniatures, and I am greatly indebted to the various owTiers, whose

PREFACE vii

names appear on the plates, for permission to make use of the choice examples from their collections which are here reproduced. Others are taken from costly and privately printed works, or from books that are now out of print, and the aim has been to present in chronological sequence the works of all the noted miniature painters and to show in most cases representative examples.

My very hearty thanks are accorded to my friends Dr. Martin Onslow Forster, F.R.S., and Dr. Laing, and to my son Mr. Cuthbert A. Williamson for their kindness in reading my proofs and making many valuable suggestions concerning them.

If I have succeeded in being of some service to those who devote their attention to this dehghtful branch of portraiture in the study of which I have laboured for so many years I shall feel amply rewarded and the purpose of this book will have been achieved.

GEORGE C. WILLIAMSON.

Burgh House, Hampstead, London, May, 1920.

Contents

HAPTER PAGE

PREFACE V

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - - - - xi

Chapter I The Origin Of The Art

IT is unnecessary, and not even desirable, in a handbook of this kind, which has to deal with portrait miniatures, that lengthy reference should be made to the art of preparing illuminated manuscripts, even though the use of the word miniature was originally applied to the paintings in these MSS., and is still used more or less in the same connection. The student may perhaps be puzzled at the very outset by noting the existence of Bradley's " Dictionary of Miniaturists," and finding that none of the artists alluded to in this volume are referred to in that Dictionary, but he will then understand that the book in question has to deal with the miniaturists, painters, illuminators and caligraphcrs who were responsible for the illuminated MSS. of early days, and not with those who are now usually termed Painters oj portraits in miniatttre. The very word miniature offers the first problem for solution. There is little doubt that it was derived from the '' Latin mj;n«m, vermilion, the colour used for the heading i[/ and initial letters of these MSS., in which small pictorial 7 scenes were introduced. The original meaning of this was afterwards expressed by the term lubrication, and then the word miniature became applied to the illuminations in the

MS., rather than to the decoration in red lines which surrounded them ; but, after a while, owing to the small dimensions of the work, the word became associated with the French word mignatnre, and so gradually was used with regard to paintings in little, which are with greater accuracy to be spoken of as " limnings." In process of time, the word has really lost its original meaning, and we now speak of a miniature bookcase, or miniature books, or of any object which is of small proportions, and we use the word miniature as an adjective to qualify it, and to express the sense that it is an exceedingly small example of its class. It is not easy to adopt a definition that will be simple and accurate for what we now call a miniature, perhaps the easiest way is to speak of a miniature as a portrait that can be held in one hand. It may perhaps be no bigger than the thumb-nail, it may perchance be as large as the palm of the hand, or even larger, but it must be a portable portrait, one that can be easily held and examined closely. It would be better, undoubtedly, if the use of the old word " limning " had survived. John Crowne's " Country Wit," a favourite play with Charles II. published in 1675, and acted with applause at the Duke's Theatre, in the course of a conversation between two persons styled " Merry " and " Ramble " gives these lines : —

Merry : Cannot you limne, Sir ?

Ramble : Limne ! What dost thou mean ?

Merry : Why limne. Sir, draw pictures in little.

The word su^^dved well into Stuart or even the beginning of Hanoverian, times. King Charles's collection was called " The King's collection of limnings." In an appointment to Queen Anne the miniature painter was styled " Limner to the Queen," and certain documents of the reign of George I. speak of limnings being executed by the King's painters. Pepys speaks of " paintings in little," and this is also a

THE ORIGIN OF THE ART suitable phrase to apply to these small portraits, although perhaps an awkward one. " Limning " would be a better, but that also we have to trace back to the illuminated MSS. because the word is derived from the French word enliiminer and that again is derived from the Latin illuminare, to paint. It is really impossible to lay down a hard and fast Une at the present day for the use of the word, because we use the same word for portraits which differ as much as the tiny enamel by Petitot of Louis XIV. which can be covered by an English farthing, and the portrait of Charles II. at Goodwood which measures nine inches by seven, or the one of the three youths at Burghley which is about the same size, or the circular one of Henrietta Maria, in the Amsterdam Museum, which is over seven inches in diameter.

Now for the origin of these miniatures.

Portraits of hving persons appear in some of the earliest of the illuminated MSS. Take, for example, one by Simon Beninck, in a genealogical tree that showed the alUance between the Royal houses of Spain and Portugal, or the picture of Cardinal Grimani by Giulio Clovio in the celebrated Grimani Breviary, or the one of Francis I. on the ratification of the treaty of perpetual peace with England dated i8th August, 1527, or those of Henry VIII. and Philip and Mary which adorned the Rolls of Pleas, in the Court of King's Bench, at Westminster and St. Alban's. All these are well-known examples of single portraits of sovereigns and notable persons, painted upon documents that were intended to be preserved with great care, and which were connected with certain special epochs in the history of the times. There was no idea, when these portraits were painted, of their being used separately, in frames, but they added to the authenticity and importance of the treaty or document in question, and were, perhaps, proofs, to those who saw the document, that it had been agreed to, by the sovereign whose portrait adorned it.

That those early portraits were hkcnesses of the sovereigns ill question is quite another matter. They are not works of very high merit, and in all probabihty they did not bear a very close resemblance to the persons they were intended to depict, but at the same time, there w^as an attempt at genuine portraiture, and one feels, in looking, for example, at the Grimani Breviary, that the representation of the Cardinal does depict a Venetian ecclesiastic of the day, and even the type of man we can imagine Grimani to have been. Again, in the Roll of Pleas at Westminster for 1556 there was a certain definite attempt at Royal portraiture, the solemn face of Queen Mary and the supercilious aspect of Philip were both reahsed by the artist. The portrait of Francis on the first page of the treaty to which the magnificent golden " buUa " was attached is clearly that of a Frenchman, and of one who ruled in his own country, with much the facial characteristics that might be expected of Francis 1. Here are evident attempts at psychology. Gradually, however, more effort was made to constitute these limnings in colour, on documents or MSS., more akin to real portraits, and from the time of Henry VIII. the improvement slowly developed. There is a diploma of Charles II. creating his natural son James to be Duke of Monmouth, \\'ith remainder to the Earldom of Buccleuch, dated April 20th, 1663, and this bears upon it quite a fine portrait of the King. The deed was dated at Whitehall, and therefore, though it bears the great seal of Scotland, the portrait was probably the work of some English artist, and, as it very much resembles a painting by Cooper, it may have been painted bj' some court limner, after a miniature by that artist. From that time we have an almost complete series of portraits of the monarchs of England on letters patent, or on charters. We cannot say who was the artist responsible for any of them, save perhaps in one instance, in which a drawing of Charles II. by David Loggan so closely resembles the head of that

THE ORIGIN OF THE ART monarch on the letters patent of that day that it seems almost certain Loggan must have been responsible for the original drawing from which perhaps other persons made copies for documents and deeds. The same thing occurred in other parts of Europe. There are some interesting sixteenth-century letters of instruction to persons who held high positions under the State of Venice. They took the form of volumes, beautifully and elaborately bound, and on the first page of each was usually a representation of the envoy to whom the document was addressed. His portrait was associated with a representation of his patron saint, and enclosed in an elaborate decorative border, in which appeared the arms of the Doge of Venice and s5nnbolical figures, representative of the republic of Venice, and the provinces which gave allegiance to it. Some of the earliest of these letters of instruction were merely conventional and formal portraiture, but gradually there was a clear attempt to represent the man as he was, and some of them, specially two, dated 1545 and 1550 appointing governors to Cattaro and Bassano, were attempts to represent the man himself, and were evidently painted from life. In these, and in some similar documents of Enghsh origin and of about the same period, we have the earliest attempts at portraiture within a very small compass, such as we now speak of as a miniature, and from this point down to the time when there were actual portraits painted in England on documents and when these portraits were cut out and framed is not a long step, and one which will be set out in detail in the next chapter.

Chapter II Hans Holbein And The Earliest Painters In Miniature

I HAVE already alluded to the probable evolution of the portrait miniature from the small portraits which appeared in early manuscripts, and we have now to consider the actual application of this theory.

That there were portraits in these manuscripts is known to every collector, and it is easy to verify the statement by examining the English MS. of the fifteenth century De Regimine Principis in the British Museum,^ which contains the well-known portrait of Geoffrey Chaucer the poet (1370-1450?), in Hoccleve's manuscript.

Again, the famous Sherborne Manuscript, perhaps the finest and most precious in England, which is preserved in the Library at Aln\\ick Castle, contains in several places the portrait of the illuminator who carried out the work, in about 1400, for the Abbot of Sherborne, John Siferwas, a Dominican friar belonging to an old English family. The same wonderful Manuscript contains also the portrait of the scribe who wrote it, one John Whas, a monk. The portrait of Siferwas appears also in another famous manuscript, the odd pages of the Salisbury Lectionarium in the British Museum, which possesses for its frontispiece a portrait of John, Lord Lovell of Tichmersh, who is shown receiving the book from Siferwas w-ho had prepared it. Yet other portraits can be seen at the British Museum, those of Occleve ^ already mentioned in the act of

1 Harleian MSS. 4866, f. 88. 2 Royal MS. 17, D. VI.

HANS HOLBEIN presenting his book to Henry V., and of John Lydgate/ the poet (i370?-i45i?) on a similar occasion to Henry VI.

In the famous manuscript of Caesar's " De Bello GaUico " prepared for Francis I. there appeared several portraits attributed by M. Dimier to Jean Clouet (Janet) and of circular form, depicting the companions of the King. In one of the three ^ volumes in which this great treasure is contained, there is a portrait of the King himself, and such circular miniatures would readily lend themselves to framing if once removed from the manuscript. It seems to be possible that one such portrait was actually so treated, because in the J. Pierpont Morgan collection is a portrait of Charles Cosse, Marechal de Brissac, which is identical in technique, colouring and size with the portraits of the Preux de Marignan in the MS. of the Gallic Wars and is attributed by M. Dimier to the same artist. This is painted on a piece of vellum, and has an irregular edge just as it would have had if it had been cut out. No manuscript from which such a portrait is missing has at present been identified, but there is little doubt that it did once adorn such a manuscript whence it was cut out in order that it might be framed, and used as a portrait to be carried in the hand or exhibited on the person. It is possible that other famous miniatures of an early period both in England and France may have come from similar sources, but whether this is so or not, we probably possess in the Pierpont Morgan portrait ^ one definite example of the origin of the framed portrait miniature.

The idea once started became popular amongst the great people of the day, and it was early in the sixteenth century

1 Harleian MSS. 1766, f. 5.

* The three vols, are separated, one is in the Bibliotheque Nationale, another at Chantilly, and a third in the British Museum (Harl. MSS. 6205). All three have been reproduced in exquisite fashion in facsimile, see B.M. K.T.C. 28a3.

' See my Catalogue of the Morgan collection, 1907, III., page i.

Plate I .

THE ORIGIN OF THE ART AND HOLBEIN.

Leonard Bur. By Holbein.

In the Collection of Mrs. Sotheby.

Francis I, from the triplicate of the ratification of the treaty |of perpetual peace dated i8 August, 1527. Artist unknown. In the Public Record Office.

Queen Catherine Howard. By Holbein.

In the Collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, K.T.

Hans Holbein in his 45th year, dated 1543. By himself.

In the Collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, K.T.

Charles de Cosse, Marechal de Brissac {ob. 1621). By Jean Clouet.

In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan.

HANS HOLBEIN ii

that the art began to come into fashion. In Mr. Salting's bequest to the nation, now exhibited at the Victoria and Albert Museum, can be seen two dehghtful portraits of ntt]e girls ^ painted in the year 1590, when they were at the ages of five and four respectively. One holds a red carnation, the other an apple, and they were probably the work of Lavina Teerlinck, the daughter of Simon Binninc of Bruges, who certainly painted in England ^ ; in fact at one time there was preserved with them, by their then owner, Mr. Hawkins, a slip of parchment, which I myself saw and read, on which was inscribed a statement that the two portraits were " fynely " painted " by La\dna Teerlinck in 1590 at Greenwich." In some unaccountable and most unfortunate manner this precious riband of yellowish parchment disappeared, when the Hawkins collection was transferred to Christie's, and has never since been seen. These portraits are in contemporary, turned ivory cases, and the parchment was, when I saw it, tied on to one of them. There were other fifteenth-century painters to whom miniatures are attributed, as for example Simon Binninc already mentioned, and Luke and Susanna Hornebolt, but to all intents and purposes the art commences in England with the work of Hans Holbein (1497- 1543) who seems to have paid his first visit to this country in 1526, and his second in 1531.

When he actually commenced to paint portrait miniatures it is impossible to say, inasmuch as we have so few dated portraits to guide us, but it is probable that the earliest that has survived is the portrait of Henry VIII. 's

* See my Catalogue of the Morgan collection of Miniatures, 1906, I., 20.

* There is an interesting reference to her being at the English Court in 1546 : — Mrs. Levyna Terling, paintrix, to have a fee of £^0 a year from the Annunciation of Our Lady last past, during your Majesty's pleasure. Preferred by my Lady Harbert. It is to be found in the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII-, 1546, Part IL, No. 475, Grant loi.

12 nil': MINIATURE COLLECTOR

third wife, Jane Seymour, which originally belonged to the Seymour family, and is said to have passed through the possession of the Duke of Buckingham, Horace Walpole (it is beheved), Mr. Sackville Bale, and Dr. Propert, and which now belongs to Mr. Vernon Watney. Then would follow the portrait of Henry VI H.^ himself, in the Morgan collection, which, tradition states, was presented by the King to Anne of Cleves, and the superb portrait of that Queen which forms part of the Salting bequest, and which wasprobably painted in July, 1539, at Duren, in Cleves, by order of the King. Another portrait of Jane Seymour belongs to Mr. H. Dent-Brocklehurst, and a third to the Duke of Buccleuch, while portraits of two other wives of Henry VIII. are known, if one in the Dent-Brocklehurst collection is correctly called Queen Catherine Parr, and if, as is practically certain, the miniature in the Royal collection and the similar one belonging to the Duke of Buccleuch represent Queen Catherine Howard. Holbein never painted anything more lovely, however, than the portrait of Mrs. Pemberton,^ at the age of twenty-three, which is now the chief treasure in the J. Pierpont Morgan collection. It is a work of exquisite beauty and great refinement, and has been identified from the coat-of-arms painted on the back. It also came from the C. H. T. Hawkins collection. Holbein's own portrait is in the Wallace col]ection,''and a very similar portrait is in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch. Both are dated 1543 when the artist was in his forty-fifth year. An earlier, and even finer work is in the Salting collection, and was painted in 1532, when, as the artist himself declares, he was thirtj'-five years old. Besides those, there are in existence portraits by him of many other persons notable in the court of the Tudor King, as for example Catherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk (collection of the Earl of Ancaster), Queen Katherine

* Morgan catalogue, 1906, I. p. 4, No. 2.

* Morgan catalogue, 1906, I. p. 8, No. 4.

HANS HOLBEIN 13 of Aragon (collection of the late Mr. Joseph), Chas. Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, Henry Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, Lady Audley, and Queen Catherine Howard (collection of H.M. the King), and several belonging to the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.

For one of the most charming, however, we must go abroad, as the Queen of Holland's collection contains a famous portrait of a young man, said to be the son of a merchant of the Steel Yard, a friend of Sir Thomas More, and tradition gives it that More introduced the painter to his companion, who forthwith entmsted him with this commission, a portrait of the boj^ to send to his mother, in Holland . Nobly has Holbein carried out the commission . The portrait is quite simple, ^^ithout any accessories, just that of a quiet, thoughtful, reflective youth, in a dark claret coloured costume, with a tiny white lace collar just visible, close up to the neck. As a piece of exquisite portraiture it can hardly be surpassed. Another, in the same collection, represents, I think, Reskymeer, a Cornish gentleman, whose full-length portrait by the same artist is to be seen at Hampton Court.

The collector is not very likely to come across a miniature by Holbein, although of course such a delightful circumstance might occur, and, in fact, only in May, 1918, a portrait of undoubted authenticity representing Lady Mary Howard came up for sale, did not fetch its true value and returned to the collection of Sir Henry Jerningham, where it still is. In this case, the story of the history of the miniature was complete, but, unluckily, the whole of the work now seen was not that of Holbein, as some other artist, perhaps in Stuart times, or in those of Queen Anne, had attempted to repair some damage and had not been wholly successful. As regards the greater part of the portrait, however, it was certainly the work of the Swabian master himself, and so rare are miniatures by Holbein that any collector might well be proud to possess this

Plate II.

HOLBEIN.

1. George Nevill, Baron Abergavenny, K.G.

In the Collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, K.T.,

2. Charles Brandon, son of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk {ob.

1551). Oneof two portraits of brothers. Inscribed ann 154 1

In the Collection of H.M. the King.

3. Cromwell, Earl of Essex.

In the Collection of Mrs. Sotheby.

4. A Young Man, name unknown, the son, it is said, of a merchant

of the Steelyard.

In the Collection of the Queen of Holland.

PLATE II

HANS HOLBEIN 15

interesting portrait and to chronicle in his catalogue the long and curious history that belongs to it, and which proved whom it represents.^

In case a similar chance befalls the collector, it will be well to set down, for his guidance, certain rules. Holbein's miniatures are circular — never true circles, never trimmed quite accurately, but irregular in shape and often with jagged edges. They are on a blue ground, of a quite clear, pure ultramarine blue, distinctive and easy of identification. They are often inscribed, and sometimes signed with initials, and the lettering is in gold or black and in square clear characters. The paint is put on very lightly, and is never thick or lumpy, the modelling is subtle, so subtle that it is difficult to understand how, with a very slight amount of colour, and such very tender shades, so much modelling could be obtained ; and the shadows are transparent and white, never very deep or dark. Exquisite is the word to apply to the technique, so dainty is it and so refined. Let it be borne in mind that Holbein died in 1543 and not in 1554, as was for a long time believed, and then it will be clear that he cannot have painted Edward VI. as a young man, inasmuch as that King was born in 1538, five years only before Holbein died. This is an important fact, as there are several portraits of Edward VI. which bear Holbein's name, but which have no connection with him. Again, be it remembered that genuine miniatures by Holbein are very rarely to be seen, but that so great is the eminence of his name that many portraits are attributed to him, therefore the collector must be exceedingly cautious when any so-called come under his notice.

The genuine miniatures are either painted on the very thinnest vellum, mounted on a placing card, or else direct on to the card itself, and never on any other material.

^ It has just lately passed into the hands of a notable collector in Sweden.

Tlie hair in the portrait should be examined first, as Holbein painted the hair with extreme delicacy and the finest of outline. Next, look for ornaments, because they are always executed with scrupulous accuracy, and extremely sharp definite outline, but they never occupy any but quite a subordinate position in the work. Holbein rivets attention on the face, everything else is subservient to it, and the face is always full of character, invariably at rest, and generally painted with a serious and somewhat pathetic look.

There is no such thing as a vivacious or smiling Holbein portrait, the expression is calm, serious, thoughtful, but not specially alert.

There are probably Holbeins yet to be discovered in country houses, for the eighteen or so that can be readily mentioned are not likely to be constituted his entire output, and there is therefore the chance for a collector to discover one hitherto unknown. Holbein does not appear to have had any pupils or to have founded any school. The men who followed him were very different in their technique, but he probably had some assistants in his studio, and there are several miniatures, notably, e.g., the portraits of Nicholas Kratzer and Arnold Franz and Henry, Lord Stafford in the J. P. Morgan collection which belong undoubtedly to Holbein's period and partake very largely of his method and style and which yet differ from his work. They may quite weU bear his name, yet we may be sure that the hand that was responsible for Mrs. Pemberton, for the Queen of Holland's " boy," and for Henry VIII. and Anne of Cleves, to mention no others, could not have completed these portraits. There is evidence, to the eye of the expert, in aU of them, of a connection, intimate and real, with the work of Holbein, but there is also evidence of the work of another hand, and I believe that these and other miniatures of the same character were produced in the master's studio, under his supervision, and perhaps sketched

HANS HOLBEIN in by him, but that some unknown artist — about whom we would gladly have some information — was responsible for very much in them. Of the other artists of the period, Johannes Corvus — the Hornebolts, Jean Clouet, Gerlack Fliccius, Gillam Streetes, John Shute, John Bettes, and Francis Segar, I need say but little here. About all these men our information is exceedingly scanty, and is not very likely to increase, except quite b}^ accident and research amongst contemporary documents, so that the collector may well leave these artists alone and devote his attention to works that are more likely to come before him.

It should, however, just be mentioned that the period boasted also of other artists who did not sign their works and who therefore cannot be identified, for there are anonymous portraits, sometimes dated, in all the great collections, notably in that of the Duke of Buccleuch, differing in technique and colouring from the works of any known men, and although, sometimes, the person depicted can be identified, the artist responsible for the portrait remains in total obscurity.