Cornelius van der Voort

Portrait of a Lady in an Elaborate Ruff & Lace Coif c.1610-20, Dutch Old Master

circa 1610-1620

Titan Fine Art present this picture which formed part of a historic collection of an English aristocratic family, Lord and Lady Sandys at their magnificent baroque and Regency Grade-I listed family home, Ombersley Court. The house was among the most fascinating survivals of its kind in this country. The atmospheric interiors were distinguished above all for the works of art associated with two key moments in national history and, more specifically, to the roles of Colonel the Hon. John Russell in the Civil War and the reign of King Charles II and of Lord Arthur Hill, later 2nd Baron Sandys, in the Peninsular War. The collection was acquired or commissioned over five centuries and remained at Ombersley Court until its recent sale, the first in 294 years. This painting hung in The Great Hall (see photo). This charming portrait is an example of the type of small-scale panel portraits, often of splendid beauties of the time, that became fashionable from about the first quarter of the seventeenth century. The sitter has been depicted wearing a low-cut silk dress with the wide billowing sleeves typical of the late 1630’s. The simplicity of the ensemble is reinforced by the absence of lace on either the collar or cuffs. At this time gone are the complicated layers of fabrics, and now replaced with understated elegance of plain silk (satin and taffeta were most popular), with only a couple of focal points as accessories. There is an abundance of the accessory par excellence – pearls, and they are worn as a necklace, on her attire, and as earrings; the pear-shaped earrings are called ‘unions excellence’ reflecting the difficulty of finding perfectly matched pearls of such large size. They could range up to 20 millimetres in diameter. There is a splendid display of gold, diamond and pearl jewellery which is an obvious sign of her wealth. The portrait is thought to represent Thomas Bruce (1596-1654), Earl of Elgin. The physiognomy and features in our portrait strongly correlate to a portrait of the Earl, by Cornelius Johnson (1593-1661), painted circa 1638, and is held at Kenwood House, London. Another painting from Ombersley Court, also with Titan Fine Art, is contemporaneous to ours and is thought to represent the Earl’s wife, Diana Cecil, 1st Countess of Elgin (c.1603-1654) - it appears to have derived from Cornelius Johnson’s depiction of the Countess circa 1638, also at Kenwood House. During the 1630’s Johnson painted a number of portraits, obviously influenced by Van Dyke. Here, Theodore Russel, who worked in the studios of both Van Dyle and Johnson, and later specialised in small scale reproductions of his master’s works, modelled the head, with the striking large dark eyes, on Cornelius Johnson, and the attire on Anthony van Dyke. There are also other portraits by Johnson of the sitter with very similar facial features to that of the sitter in ours. Theodore Russel and Cornelius Johnson also had a family connection as it is thought that Russel’s step-mother was a sister of Johnson. Thomas Bruce, 1st Earl of Elgin, was a prominent Scottish nobleman who held titles such as the 3rd Lord Bruce of Kinloss. He resided at Houghton House in Bedfordshire and played a significant role in the political and social landscape of his time. His legacy as an Earl and Lord continues to be remembered in history. Thomas Bruce, born in Edinburgh in 1599, inherited the Scottish peerage title as the 3rd Lord Bruce of Kinloss at the age of 13 following his brother's untimely death in a duel. The family's estates, including Whorlton Castle and manor, were granted by King James I of England to Thomas's father, with the wardship of Thomas and the estates entrusted to his mother until he reached the age of 21. He maintained a strong connection with King Charles I's court during the Personal Rule, receiving titles of honour and prestigious roles throughout the years. Thomas Bruce was married twice in his lifetime. His first marriage was to Anne Chichester in 1622. Ann died in 1627, the day after giving birth to their only child, Robert Bruce, who later became the 1st Earl of Ailesbury. On 12 November 1629, Thomas Bruce married Lady Diana Cecil, the daughter of William Cecil and widow of Henry de Vere. The marriage was childless, but Diana brought significant estates with her. Thomas Bruce died on 21 December 1663 at the age of 64. This oil on panel portrait has been well cared for over its life, which spans almost four centuries. Having recently undergone a treatment to remove an obscuring discoloured varnish, it can be fully appreciated, and attributed to Theodore Russel. Once owned by Evesham Abbey, the manor of Ombersley was acquired by the Sandys family in the early 1600s, when Sir Samuel Sandys, the eldest son of Edwin Sandys, Bishop of Worcester and later Archbishop of York, took a lease on the manor, before receiving an outright grant in 1614. The present house, Ombersley Court, dates from the time of Samuel, 1st Lord Sandys, between 1723 and 1730. The house itself is a fine example of an English Georgian country house set in rolling countryside and surrounded by Wellingtonias, planted to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo by Arthur Hill, 2nd Baron Sandys, who played a distinguished part in the battle and was one of the Duke of Wellington’s aides de camp. The Duke also stayed in the house and in the Great Hall, was the Waterloo banner which was brought to the house by Sir Arthur Hill, aide-de-camp to the Duke of Wellington, who succeeded his mother, the Marchioness of Downshire as 2nd Lord Sandys. Further Waterloo memorabilia are kettle drums from battle. The family had a strong tradition of military and political service, dating back to the 17th century, and this was also reflected in the fine collection of portraits and paintings in the house. In short, Ombersley represented a vital aspect of British history. The house and more especially the collection were of the greatest historical importance. Houses that have remained in the possession of the same family for as many as three centuries have become increasingly rare. Through this portrait, collectors have a chance to acquire a piece of British history and an evocative vestige of a glittering way of life, which is now gone. Presented in a fine period frame. Theodore Russell, or Roussel, was born in London in 1614. His father came from Bruges to England and was the Royal Stuart jeweller. His apprenticeship was spent in the studio of his uncle, Cornelius Johnson, with whom he lived for about nine years. Sometime after 1632, he is said to have worked as an assistance to Van Dyck. He executed numerous copies of portraits by his famous master and other notable painters, also painting original works. He is particularly remembered for his portraits of Charles II at Woburn Abbey and James II at the Palace of Holyrood. His son, Antony Russel (c.1663–1743) was also a portrait-painter and is said to have studied under John Riley. Several of his copies were in the Royal Collections, and among the nobility. Provenance Richard Hill...

Titan Fine Art present this picture which formed part of a historic collection of an English aristocratic family, Lord and Lady Sandys at their magnificent baroque and Regency Grade-I listed family home, Ombersley Court. The house was among the most fascinating survivals of its kind in this country. The atmospheric interiors were distinguished above all for the works of art associated with two key moments in national history and, more specifically, to the roles of Colonel the Hon. John Russell in the Civil War and the reign of King Charles II and of Lord Arthur Hill, later 2nd Baron Sandys, in the Peninsular War. The collection was acquired or commissioned over five centuries and remained at Ombersley Court until its recent sale, the first in 294 years. This painting hung in The Great Hall (see photo). This charming portrait is an example of the type of small-scale panel portraits, often of splendid beauties of the time, that became fashionable from about the first quarter of the seventeenth century. The sitter has been depicted wearing a low-cut silk dress with the wide billowing sleeves typical of the late 1630’s. The simplicity of the ensemble is reinforced by the absence of lace on either the collar or cuffs. At this fashion moved away from complicated layers of fabrics to an understated elegance of plain silk (satin and taffeta were most popular) with only a couple of focal points as accessories. However, obligatory for any respectable woman, pears are shown in abundance, as a necklace, on the dress attire, and pear-shaped earrings called ‘unions excellence’ reflecting the difficulty of finding perfectly matched pearls of such large size. They could range up to 20 millimetres in diameter. There is a splendid display of gold, diamond and pearl jewellery which is an obvious sign of her wealth. The subject is thought to be Diana Bruce née Cecil, 1st Countess of Elgin (c.1603-1654). The physiognomy and features strongly correlate to a portrait of the countess by Cornelius Johnson (1593-1661), painted circa 1638, at Kenwood House, London. Another painting from Ombersley Court, also with Titan Fine Art, is contemporaneous to this and is thought to represent the countess’s husband, Thomas Bruce, 1st Earl of Elgin (1599-1663) – it appears to have derived from Cornelius Johnson’s portrait of the Earl, of circa 1638, also at Kenwood House. During the 1630’s Johnson painted a number of portraits, obviously influenced by Van Dyke. Here, Theodore Russel, who worked in the studios of both Van Dyle and Johnson, and later specialised in small scale reproductions of his master’s works, appears to have modelled the head, with the striking large dark eyes, on Cornelius Johnson, and the attire on Anthony van Dyke. Theodore Russel and Cornelius Johnson also had a family connection as it is thought that Russel’s step-mother was a sister of Johnson. Diana Cecil, Countess of Oxford (1596–1654), later Countess of Elgin, was an English aristocrat. She was probably the middle daughter of the three daughters of William Cecil, 2nd Earl of Exeter and Elizabeth Drury. Her first husband, Henry de Vere, 18th Earl of Oxford, died in battle only 18 months after their marriage in 1624. She married her second husband Thomas Bruce (1599-I663) in 1629, becoming the Countess of Elgin in 1633. Her portrait was presumably painted at a similar time as the companion portrait of her husband, the Earl of Elgin. She died in 1654, outlived by her husband and leaving no children. A large monument exists of the countess in her burial shroud at Ailesbury Mausoleum, Bedfordshire. The work has been well cared for over its life, which spanning almost four centuries, and having recently undergone a treatment to remove an obscuring discoloured varnish, it can be fully appreciated, and attributed to Theodore Russel. Once owned by Evesham Abbey, the manor of Ombersley was acquired by the Sandys family in the early 1600s, when Sir Samuel Sandys, the eldest son of Edwin Sandys, Bishop of Worcester and later Archbishop of York, took a lease on the manor, before receiving an outright grant in 1614. The present house, Ombersley Court, dates from the time of Samuel, 1st Lord Sandys, between 1723 and 1730. The house itself is a fine example of an English Georgian country house set in rolling countryside and surrounded by Wellingtonias, planted to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo by Arthur Hill, 2nd Baron Sandys, who played a distinguished part in the battle and was one of the Duke of Wellington’s aides de camp. The Duke also stayed in the house and in the Great Hall, was the Waterloo banner which was brought to the house by Sir Arthur Hill, aide-de-camp to the Duke of Wellington, who succeeded his mother, the Marchioness of Downshire as 2nd Lord Sandys. Further Waterloo memorabilia are kettle drums from battle. The family had a strong tradition of military and political service, dating back to the 17th century, and this was also reflected in the fine collection of portraits and paintings in the house. In short, Ombersley represented a vital aspect of British history. The house and more especially the collection were of the greatest historical importance. Houses that have remained in the possession of the same family for as many as three centuries have become increasingly rare. Through this portrait, collectors have a chance to acquire a piece of British history and an evocative vestige of a glittering way of life, which is now gone. Presented in a fine period frame. Theodore Russell, or Roussel, was born in London in 1614. His father came from Bruges to England and was the Royal Stuart jeweller. His apprenticeship was spent in the studio of his uncle, Cornelius Johnson, with whom he lived for about nine years. Sometime after 1632, he is said to have worked as an assistance to Van Dyck. He executed numerous copies of portraits by his famous master and other notable painters, also painting original works. He is particularly remembered for his portraits of Charles II at Woburn Abbey and James II at the Palace of Holyrood. His son, Antony Russel (c.1663–1743) was also a portrait-painter and is said to have studied under John Riley. Several of his copies were in the Royal Collections, and among the nobility. Provenance Richard Hill...

This exquisite portrait of a gentleman depicted in a sumptuous black coat edged with silver and slashed sleeves is an excellent example of the type of portrait fashionable in England and the Low Countries during the 17th century. The confident pose, striking orange sash - the colour of the house of Orange Nassau - and the leather gorget imbue the sitter with a sense of masculinity and power. The profusely decorated costume is of the highest quality and de rigueur of an elite class - the artist has carefully cultivated this portrait to emphasise the sitter’s wealth and standing in the society that he belonged to. The casual pose, with one arm resting on a hip, is much less formal than earlier decades, and it speaks of ‘sprezzatura’ – one’s appearance should not appear laborious, but instead, effortless. The oil on cradled panel portrait can be dated to circa 1650 based on the hairstyle and the attire - small falling collar, short doublet (doublets reduced in size to just below the ribcage in the late 1650’s), and the type of slashed sleeves with the sleeve seams left open to reveal the white fabric. The demand for portraits in the Netherlands was great in the 17th century. Bartholemeus van der Helst was considered to be one of the leading portrait painters of the Dutch Golden Age surpassing even Rembrandt as the most sought-after portraitist in Harlaam. The Dutch Golden Age, roughly spanning the 17th century, was a period when Dutch trade, science, military, and art were among the most acclaimed in the world. Dutch explorers charted new territory and settled abroad. Trade by the Dutch East-India Company thrived, and war heroes from the naval battles were decorated and became national heroes. During this time, The Dutch Old Masters began to prevail in the art world, creating a depth of realistic portraits of people and life in the area that has hardly been surpassed. The Golden Age painters depicted the scenes that their discerning new middle-class patrons wanted to see. This new wealth from merchant activities and exploration combined with a lack of church patronage, shifted art subjects away from biblical genres. Still life’s of items of everyday objects, landscapes, and seascapes reflecting the naval and trade power that the Republic enjoyed were popular. The new wealthy class were keen to have their portraits commissioned and many artists worked in this lucrative field. Such was the popularity of art that everyone had a painting, even the humble butcher, and hundreds of thousands of paintings were produced. By tradition the sitter is Maarten Tromp (1598-1653) who was an Admiral in the Dutch Navy (the reverse of the portrait contains an old handwritten inscription “van Tromp”). Certainly, the distinctive orange sash is similar to those worn by officers of the Dutch army in the Netherlands who served under the Princes of Orange and the House of Nassau. However, it should be noted that the physiognomy differs from other images of Tromp. Tromp was the oldest son of Harpert Maertensz, a naval officer and captain. He joined the Dutch navy as a lieutenant in July 1622 and was later promoted from captain to Lieutenant-Admiral of Holland and West Frisia in 1637. In 1639, during the Dutch struggle for independence from Spain, Tromp defeated a large Spanish fleet bound for Flanders at the Battle of the Downs, which marked an enormous change - the end of Spanish naval power. He was killed in action during the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1653 where he commanded the Dutch fleet in the battle of Scheveningen. Gloves were an absolutely vital accessory and the elaborate pair in this portrait are embellished with threads of silk and precious metals and salmon-coloured lining. He wears only one glove and holds the other, providing an opportunity to better display the cuffs and detail on his right wrist and forearm. The gloves are probably made from the most prized leather which came from Spain, in particular from Cordova. Cordovan leather was tanned with a special vegetal process that left it both highly impermeable and divinely soft. King Charles I, posed in a rather relaxed manner for Daniel Mytens’s portrait in 1631, is wearing gloves and boots in matching Cordovan leather. The hide is thick, but you can see just how supple it is from the way the gauntlet dimples and the long boot legs fold over themselves, rippling and wrinkling at the ankles. Apart from keeping hands warm the use of gloves during the 15th through the 19th centuries were full of symbolism and they were worn regardless of the season. They kept the skin unblemished - soft, smooth hands were considered highly attractive. This combination of necessity and proximity to bare skin made gloves a deeply personal gift and they took on a strong symbolic significance and were regarded as emblematic of fidelity and loyalty for hundreds of years. Such was the importance of their symbolism was that some gloves were never intended to be worn at all. Their luxury made them ideal gifts at court, and so in the 15th and 16th centuries, ambassadors often presented them as symbols of loyalty. Until the mid-19th century, it was customary to give gloves as tokens to guests at weddings and to mourners at funerals. Gentleman often gifted their bride-to-be with a pair of gloves (the obligatory gift) and were handed over at the betrothal and put on display before the wedding took place. It was probably their direct contact with the skin that led to the eroticism of gloves. Not only were pairs often exchanged between lovers, but from the 16th to the 18th centuries, it was common practice to remove one glove and give it as a gift to a favourite. The idea of the item being presented still warm from the wearer’s hand is certainly suggestive. Following the death of King George IV, his executors purportedly found over a thousand mismatched ladies’ gloves among his possessions. The sentiment of a 17th-century poem reveals the popularity of the practice: “Come to our wedding to requite your loves / Shew us your hands and we’ll fit you with gloves.” Such generosity might be pricey for the hosts, but gloves of varying quality could be offered depending on the status of the recipient. Pairs made with the finest Spanish leather might be reserved for immediate family, while coarse sheep’s leather could be distributed among the servants and tradesmen. The apportioning of quality according to class provided a very clear message of the gloves’ intended use. For refined guests, they were decoration; for the lower classes, they were functional. Bartholomeus van der Helst...

In 1607, the Delft city council decided to commission a portrait of Stadholder Maurits of Nassau for the town hall, with Michiel van Mierevelt as the chosen artist due to the passing...

Portrait of Grace Saunderson, Viscountess Castleton (1635-1667) c.1665-67 Sir Peter Lely and Studio (1618-1680) Titan Fine Art present this work, which formed part of a collection of family pictures and heirlooms of the Saunderson, Viscount Castleton family and their descendants, the Earls of Scarbrough, at their magnificent family seat Sandbeck Park, where the Earls still reside today almost four hundred years later. It was painted in the studio of Sir Peter Lely...

This magnificent grand-scale work, offered by Titan Fine Art, formed part of a collection of family pictures and heirlooms of the Rivers Baronets and their descendants for over 325 years, before it was dispersed by the last in the line in 1988. The work was painted by the most technically proficient painter in England after the death of Van Dyck, and the dominant court painter to Charles II and James, Duke of York, Sir Peter Lely. It is no surprise that for years Lely had no serious rivals, was enormously influential and successful, and one of the country’s most important painters – and his work influenced countless artists over generations. The exquisite carved and gilded auricular frame is an astounding work of art in itself. The sitters in this exquisite double portrait are Sir John Rivers, who succeeded as the 3rd Baronet Chafford in 1657 (c.1638 - c. 1679), and his wife, Lady Anne Hewitt (c.1640-c.1689). They are seated in an outdoor setting beside a fountain modelled as a female figure with water issuing into a scallop-shell. The water, the elaborate sculpted fountain with its scallop-edged bowl, and the open shell in her hand are symbols of fertility - as such they make an appropriate allusion to Lady Anne’s potential as wife and mother, recalling Proverbs, chapter 5, verse 18: “Let thye fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of thye youth”. This reference was realised, as Sir John and Lady Anne produced at least six children; their son George (1665-1734) became 4th Baronet of Chafford. The composition, thus, represents a celebration of marriage and was likely commissioned around the time of the betrothal (the marriage took place 26th Feb 1662 or 1663). The statues in the left margin are 'Youth and 'Old Age' and are a typical form of Memento Mori reminding virile young man that even they will lose their youth and grow old. The Rivers family, originally of Kent, traces its history to Sir Bartholomew Rivers, in the reign of Edward IV. The family included several prominent members including several knights, a Commander in the King's Army, a steward of a ducal estate, a Lord-Mayor of London, and an M.P. John Rivers (c.1659-c.1651) was made 1st Baronet of Chafford in 1622 by King James I. The Chafford estate was the family seat and it remained so until the early 1700s with the death of Sir George Rivers, 4th Baronet (1665–1734), whose sons had all died. The Chafford estate was left to his daughters while the baronetcy passed to nephew John Rivers, 5th Baronet (c. 1718–1743), and then Sir John’s brother, Sir Peter Rivers-Gay, 6th Baronet (c. 1721–1790). Upon Sir Peter Rivers Gay's death the estate passed to his eldest son, Sir Thomas Rivers Gay, 7th Baronet (c. 1770–1805). Sir Thomas, dying in 1805 with no children, bequeathed the estate to his mother Dame Martha Rivers Gay, who managed the estate until 1834 when she settled it on the then Sir Henry Rivers, 9th Baronet (c. 1779–1851) her younger son, before dying shortly thereafter in 1835. Sir Henry had married in 1812 to Charlotte Eales, with whom he had 6 sons and 8 daughters. Upon his death in 1851 the estate passed to his eldest surviving son Sir James Francis Rivers, 10th Baronet (1822–1869). Sir James married Catherine Eastcott in 1867 but died childless in 1869, and the estate passed to his only surviving brother Sir Henry Chandos Rivers, 11th Baronet (1834–1870) but he died a year later in 1870 also childless; with no male heir the Baronetcy was therefore extinguished. The estate was bequeathed, in trust, by Sir Henry Chandos Rivers to Thomas Frederick Inman, a solicitor of Bath, who then managed the estate as a trustee on behalf of Sir Henry Chandos Rivers' sister Katherine Rivers (c.1826-1895). It then passed to Katherine River’s daughter, Katherine Wall (born c.1855), who had also inherited Worthy Park House from her father, George Alfred Ellis Wall (1825-1875). Until 1958 our portrait is known to have hung at Worthy Park House. Upon Katherine Wall’s death, the Rivers estate passed to her daughter, Katherine Eleonora Rivers Fryer (1889-1963), who married Colonel James Alexander Butchart 1877-1853. In 1958 the family sold Worthy Park House but our portrait was loaned to Southampton Museum and Art Gallery. After the death of Katherine and Colonel James, the estate was left to their only son, Charles Bruce Rivers Butchart (1917-2005) and upon Charles’ retirement to a nursing home in 1988, and without heirs, our portrait, along with the residual assets of the Rivers estate were sold, thus ending over 325 years of continual family ownership. Lady Anne Rivers is thought to have been born circa 1640. She was the fourth child of the second marriage of Sir Thomas Hewitt (or Hewett) (1606-1662), 1st Baronet of Pishobury, Herts, and his wife Margaret Lytton (died 1689). Sir Thomas was an English landowner and M.P. for Windsor and upon the English Restoration...

Artist: Unknown (Circle of David Teniers the Younger, Flemish, 1610-1690) Title: "Man in Tavern Smoking a Pipe" *No signature found Circa: 1690 Medium: Original Oil Painting on Wooden Board Framing: Framed in an antique gold gesso frame...

These two royal portraits are a major historical testimony to the stay of the Comte d'Artois (the future Charles X) and his family in Edinburgh in 1796-1797. Given by the sitters to Lord Adam Gordon, the Governor of Edinburgh, and kept by family descent to this day, these two portraits provide us with a vivid and spontaneous image of the Duc d’Angoulême and his brother the Duc de Berry. Danloux, who had emigrated to London a few years before, demonstrate his full assimilation of the art of British portrait painters in the brilliant execution of these portraits. 1. Henri-Pierre Danloux, a portraitist in the revolutionary turmoil Born in Paris in 1753, Henri-Pierre Danloux was first a pupil of the painter Nicolas-Bernard Lépicié (1735 - 1784) and then, in 1773, of Joseph-Marie Vien (1716 - 1809), whom he followed to Rome when, at the end of 1775, Vien became Director of the Académie de France. In Rome he became friends with the painter Jacques-Louis David (1748 - 1825). Returning to France around 1782, he settled in Lyon for a few years before returning to Paris in 1785. One of his first portraits was commissioned by the Baroness d'Etigny, the widow of the former Intendant of the Provinces of Gascony, Bearn and Navarre Antoine Mégret d'Etigny (1719 – 1767). He then became close to his two sons, Mégret de Sérilly and Mégret d'Etigny, who in turn became his patrons. In 1787, this close relationship with the d'Etigny family was further strengthened by his marriage to Antoinette de Saint-Redan, a relative of Madame d'Etigny. After his marriage, he left for Rome and did not return to France until 1789. It was during the winter of 1790-1791 that he painted one of his masterpieces, the portrait of Baron de Besenval. Set in a twilight atmosphere, this portrait of an aristocrat who knows that his death is imminent symbolizes the disappearance of an erudite and refined society which would be swept away by the French Revolution. The Jacobin excesses led Danloux to emigrate to England in 1792; many members of his family-in-law who remained in France were guillotined on 10 May 1794. Danloux enjoyed great success as a portrait painter in England before returning to France in 1801. During his stay in England, Danloux was deeply under the influence of English portraitists: his colors became warmer (as shown by the portrait of the Duc d'Angoulême that we are presenting), and his execution broader. 2. Description of the two portraits and biographical details of the sitters The Duc d'Angoulême (1775-1844) was the eldest son of the Comte d'Artois, the younger brother of King Louis XVI (the future King Charles X), and his wife Marie-Thérèse of Savoie. He is shown here, in the freshness of his youth, wearing the uniform of colonel-general of the "Angoulême-Dragons" regiment. He is wearing the blue cordon of the Order of the Holy Spirit, which was awarded to him in 1787, and two decorations: the Cross of Saint-Louis and the Maltese Cross, as he was also Grand Prior of the Order of Malta. Born on 16 August 1775 in Versailles, Louis-Antoine d'Artois followed his parents into emigration on 16 July 1789. In 1792, he joined the émigrés’ army led by the Prince de Condé. After his stay in Edinburgh (which will be further discussed), he went to the court of the future King Louis XVIII, who was in exile at the time, and in 1799 married his first cousin Marie-Thérèse Charlotte of France, the daughter of Louis XVI and the sole survivor of the royal family. The couple had no descendants. He became Dauphin of France in 1824, upon the accession to the throne of his father but played only a minor political role, preferring his military position as Grand Admiral. Enlisted in Spain on the side of Ferdinand VII, he returned home crowned with glory after his victory at Trocadero in 1823. He reigned for a very short time at the abdication of Charles X in 1830, before relinquishing his rights in favor of his nephew Henri d'Artois, the Duc de Bordeaux. He then followed his father into exile and died on 3 June 1844 in Gorizia (now in Italy). His younger brother, the Duc de Berry, is shown in the uniform of the noble cavalry of the émigrés’ Army. He is wearing the blue cordon of the Order of the Holy Spirit, awarded to him in May 1789, and the Cross of Saint-Louis (partly hidden by his blue cordon). Born on 24 January 1778 in Versailles, Charles-Ferdinand d'Artois also followed his parents into emigration and joined the émigrés’ army in 1792. After his stay in Edinburgh, he remained in Great Britain, where he had an affair with Amy Brown...

Portrait of Francisco de Reynoso y Baeza.   Secretary of Pope Pius V, abbot of Husillos and bishop of Córdoba. Francisci de Reynoso. Early 17th century. Small-format portrait from the late Renaissance period. Spanish school. Size: Cm 19 x Cm 13.5 Oil on wooden panel. On the back the fine tablet is strengthened (already in ancient times) by a sheet of parchment. About 1600-1610. As often in Mannerist / Late Renaissance portraits, the image of the character is accompanied by the writing that runs at the top, adding a celebratory, historicising touch to the effigy. Let's bring back the sentence here: DON FRANCISCO DE REINOSO. CAMARERO SECRETO IESCALCO PIO QUINTO OBISCOPO CORDOBA. 68 (? O 7?) (1534, Autillo de Campos, Spain - 1601, Córdoba) Francisco de Reynoso was a Spanish cleric, chief chamberlain, and secretary to Pope Pius V, abbot of Husillos, and bishop of Córdoba. He was the fourth of eleven children. His father was the seventh Lord of Autillo de Campos, and his mother was Juana de Baeza y de las Casas, daughter of Manuel de Baeza, a lawyer of the Royal Council and at the Court of Valladolid. Francisco de Reynoso was deeply devoted to the Virgin Mary and showed a strong inclination toward religion and piety from an early age. He studied Latin, arts, and theology at the University of Salamanca. In 1562, he traveled to Rome with his brothers Pedro and Luis. In January 1566, following the death of Pope Pius IV, Cardinal Antonio Michele Ghislieri was elected pope, becoming Pius V. From this period until Ghislieri's death in 1572, Francisco de Reynoso served as his chief chamberlain and secretary. After Pope Pius V died, Francisco de Reynoso returned to Spain and lived for several years in the city of Palencia, where his brother Manuel was a canon. He supported the Society of Jesus when it was established in Palencia, providing alms to the school's clergy and funding chairs of Letters and Theology at his own expense, as well as donating a significant number of books. During the brief outbreak of the Black Plague...

Giacomo used to paint with his brother Giulio, identifying their works with the monogram «I I». The strong influence of his father, Francesco, is undeniable in all his works, althoug...

The panel has been attributed both to Joan de Joanes and his son Vicente Macip Comes (Valencia, ca. 1555 – 1623). Provenance: Private Collection, England, by 1886 (according to stencils on the reverse) Private Collection, New Jersey, until 2010 The Veil of Veronica, often called the Sudarium, is one of the most important and well-known relics of Christ. According to legend, Veronica offered Christ her veil as he carried the cross to his crucifixion. He wiped his face with the veil, which left the cloth miraculously imprinted with his image. Depictions of Christ’s face on a veil, or simply images that focused in on Christ’s face, were treasured objects of religious devotion. The popularity of this format also inspired similar images of the face of the Virgin. The iconographic type of the present painting is known as the Veronica of the Virgin, which was especially favored in late medieval and early Renaissance Spain. Distinct from the images of the suffering Christ, the Veronica of the Virgin is based on the legend that Saint Luke painted a portrait of Mary from life. Although scholars have sometimes mistaken them for portraits of Queen Isabella I of Castile (known as Isabel la Católica) or as a depiction of Saint Maria Toribia (known as María de la Cabeza, or, Mary of the Head), paintings like this one were clearly intended as images of the Virgin in the style of Saint Luke’s lost portrait. The Veronica of the Virgin was especially popular in Valencia, and depictions of this subject produced there all stem back to one visual prototype: a Byzantine image in the city’s cathedral (Fig. 1). This early treatment of the Veronica was given to the cathedral in 1437 by Martin the Humane, King of Aragon and Valencia, who promoted religious veneration of the Veronica of the Virgin as part of the celebration of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This devotion spread throughout Martin’s kingdom and particularly took hold in Valencia, where the Byzantine image resided. The image, which is displayed in a gold reliquary...

English School, (circa 1600) Portrait of William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke Oil on panel, oval Image size: 29¼ x 23⅞ inches Painted wooden frame Provenance: 176, Collection of Francis Greville, 1st Earl of Warwick. The Trustees of the Lord Brooks’ Settlement, (removed from Warwick Castle). Sotheby’s, London, 22nd March 1968, lot 81. Painted onto wooden panel, this portrait shows a dark haired gentleman in profile sporting an open white shirt. On top of this garments is a richly detailed black cloak, decorated with gold thread and lined with a sumptuous crimson lining. With the red silk inside it’s all very expensive and would fall under sumptuary laws – so this is a nobleman of high degree. It’s melancholic air conforms to the contemporary popularity of this very human condition, evident in fashionable poetry and music of the period. In comparison to our own modern prejudices, melancholy was associated with creativity in this period. This portrait appeared in the earliest described list of pictures of Warwick castle dating to 1762. Compiled by collector and antiquary Sir William Musgrave ‘taken from the information of Lord & Lady Warwick’ (Add. MSS, 5726 fol. 3) is described; ‘8. Earl of Essex – an original by Zuccharo – seen in profile with black hair. Holding a black robe across his breast with his right hand.’ As tempting as it is to imagine that this is a portrait of Robert Devereux, the 2nd Earl Essex, we might take this with a pinch of salt. Its identification with this romantic and fatal Elizabethan might well have been an attempt to add romance to Warwick Castle’s walls. It doesn’t correspond all that well with Essex’s portraits around 1600 after his return from Cadiz. Notably, this picture was presumably hung not too far away from the castle’s two portraits of Queen Elizabeth I. The first, and undoubtedly the best, being the exquisite coronation portrait that was sold by Lord Brooke in the late 1970s and now hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. The second, described as being ‘a copy from the original at Ld Hydes’, has yet to resurface. The portrait eventually ended up being hung in the State Bedroom of Warwick Castle. Archival documents present one other interesting candidate. The Greville family’s earliest inventory of paintings, made in 1630 at their home Brooke House in Holborn, London, describes five portraits of identified figures. All five belonged to the courtier, politician and poet Sir Fulke Greville (1554-1628), 1st Baron Brooke, and were hung in the ‘Gallerie’ of Brooke House behind yellow curtains. One of them was described as being of ‘Lord of Pembrooke’, which is likely to have been William Herbert (1580-1630), 3rd Earl of Pembroke. William was the eldest son of Greville’s best friend’s sister Mary Sidney, and was brought up in the particularly literary and poetically orientated household which his mother had supported. Notably, the 3rd Earl was one of the figures that Shakespeare’s first folio was dedicated to in 1623. The melancholic air to the portrait corresponds to William’s own pretensions as a learned and poetic figure. The richness of the robe in the painting, sporting golden thread and a spotted black fabric, is indicative of wealth beyond that of a simple poet or actor. The portrait’s dating to around the year 1600 might have coincided with William’s father death and his own rise to the Pembroke Earldom. This period of his life too was imbued with personal sadness, as an illicit affair with a Mary Fitton had resulted in a pregnancy and eventual banishment by Elizabeth I to Wilton after a short spell in Fleet Prison. His illegitimate son died shortly after being born. Despite being a close follower of the Earl of Essex, William had side-stepped supporting Devereux in the fatal uprising against the Queen and eventually regained favour at the court of the next monarch James I. His linen shirt is edged with a delicate border of lace and his black cloak is lined on the inside with sumptuous scarlet and richly decorated on the outside with gold braid and a pattern of embroidered black spots. Despite the richness of his clothes, William Herbert has been presented in a dishevelled state of semi-undress, his shirt unlaced far down his chest with the ties lying limply over his hand, indicating that he is in a state of distracted detachment. It has been suggested that the fashion for melancholy was rooted in an increase in self-consciousness and introspective reflection during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. In contemporary literature melancholy was said to be caused by a plenitude of the melancholy humor, one of the four vital humors, which were thought to regulate the functions of the body. An abundance of the melancholia humor was associated with a heightened creativity and intellectual ability and hence melancholy was linked to the notion of genius, as reflected in the work of the Oxford scholar Robert Burton, who in his work ‘The Anatomy of Melancholy’, described the Malcontent as ‘of all others [the]… most witty, [who] causeth many times divine ravishment, and a kind of enthusiamus… which stirreth them up to be excellent Philosophers, Poets and Prophets.’ (R. Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, London, 1621 in R. Strong, ‘Elizabethan Malady: Melancholy in Elizabethan and Jacobean Portraits’, Apollo, LXXIX, 1964). Melancholy was viewed as a highly fashionable affliction under Elizabeth I, and her successor James I, and a dejected demeanour was adopted by wealthy young men, often presenting themselves as scholars or despondent lovers, as reflected in the portraiture and literature from this period. Although the sitter in this portrait is, as yet, unidentified, it seems probable that he was a nobleman with literary or artistic ambitions, following in the same vain as such famous figures as the aristocratic poet and dramatist, Edward de Vere...