Cornelis Dusart

Portrait of a Man, 17th Century Dutch Oil on Panel Portrait

Circle of Gerard van Honthorst 1592 - 1656 Portrait of a Gentleman Oil on wooden panel Image size: 29 x 23 inches Contemporary gilt frame Gerard van Honthorst was a Dutch Golden Age...

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...

George Knapton 1698-1778 Portrait of a Girl Oil on canvas Image size: 20 x 18 inches Original giltwood frame This beautiful half length portrait  of a young woman, turned to left, gazing at the spectator, wearing a pink, white lace-embroidered, dress, in her hair a pink bonnet trimmed with lace to match her dress. The depiction of a young girl epitomises child portraiture of the late eighteenth century, in which painters such as William Beechey, Joshua Reynolds, Thomas Gainsborough had begun to discover and express the true character of children, in contrast to the stiff, miniature-adults of previous generations. The Artist Knapton was born in Lymington, one of four sons of James Knapton. He was apprenticed to Jonathan Richardson from 1715 to 1722, and in 1720 was a founding subscriber to the academy of St. Martin's Lane established by Louis Chéron...

Pieter Symonsz Potter Dutch 1600 - 1652 Soldier in an Interior Oil on oak panel, red seal to reverse Image size: 15 x 10 3/4 inches Dutch Ebonised frame Bathed in a well lit roo...

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...

This 19th-century oil on panel portrait depicts a Hungarian Rabbi, characterized by his traditional attire and solemn expression. The Rabbi is portrayed with a long, white beard and ...

This magnificent oil on panel portrait, presented by Titan Fine Art, is a splendid example of the sumptuous female portraits that were painted for members of the upper echelons of society during the early part of the 1600’s. The artist has rendered this portrait with meticulous attention to detail and the surface effects of the fine materials. The elaborate lace coif and cuffs are painstakingly delineated, as is the bold black damask, and sumptuous gold decoration of her skirt and stomacher, which is wonderfully preserved and quite remarkable considering the age of the work and the fact that darker pigments are particularly vulnerable to fading and wear. This work with its spectacular depiction of costume is of absolute quality, it can be rated as one of the best works in the artist’s oeuvre and as such it is an important and splendid example of Dutch portraiture. The Dutch Golden Age of painting was a period in Dutch history, roughly spanning the 17th century, in which 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 middleclass 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. Dress was a key component in portraits, and the exuberant attire reiterates the incredible wealth of this woman. The sitter will have visited the artist’s workshop and inspected examples on display. They would have chosen the size and the sort of composition and on that basis negotiated the price – which would have also been determined by the complexity of the clothing and the jewels that were to be depicted, and by the materials to be used. When all was considered, this portrait would have cost the sitter (or her husband) a substantial sum. The colour black was regarded as humble and devout yet at the same time refined and sophisticated and the most expensive colour of fabric to dye and to maintain. Citizens spent fortunes on beautiful black robes. Such uniformity must also have had a psychological side-effect and contributed to a sense of middle-class cohesion; the collective black of the well-to-do burgess class will have given its members a sense of solidarity. The colour was always an exciting one for artists and when this portrait was painted there were at least fifty shades of it, and as many different fabrics and accoutrements. Artists went to great lengths to depict the subtle nuances of the colour and the fabrics and textures and how they reflected light and it was an ideal background against which gold and crisp white lace could be juxtaposed to dramatic effect. The sitter is either a married women or a widower as is evident by the clothing that she wears and the position, toward her right, it is highly likely that this portrait was once a pendant that hung on the right-hand side of her husband’s portrait as was convention at the time. She wears a vlieger which was a type of sleeveless over-gown or cape worn by well-to-do married women in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Variations with short sleeves or high shoulder rolls are known. Sometimes sleeves were attached with aiglets, and often slits were made to allow belts or the hands to pass through. Three-piece vlieger costumes of this kind were standard items of clothing in portraits of the women of the civic elite in the period 1600-40 and was a variant of the Spanish ‘ropa’ and served as a trademark of well-to-do married burgher women. Girls and unmarried woman, including beguines, wore a bouwen (a dress with a fitted bodice and a skirt that was closed all round) instead. This clear distinction between apparel for married and unmarried women is clear not only from inventories and trousseau lists, but also from contemporary sources such as the Dutch Spanish dictionary published by Juan Rodrigues in 1634. In it, a bouwen is described as a ‘ropa de donzella’ (over-gown worn by a virgin) and a vlieger as a ‘ropa de casada’ (overgown worn by a married woman). It is striking how few women are depicted wearing a bouwen, unless they are part of a group, family or children’s portrait and it can therefore be assumed that independent portraits of unmarried women were seldom commissioned. It is also believed that the clothing worn in these portraits existed and were faithfully reproduced when cross-referenced with the few exact documents. These sources also demonstrate that clients wanted their clothing to be depicted accurately and with this in mind precious garments and jewels were often left in the painter’s studio. The prominent white lawn molensteenkraag (or millstone ruff) is held up by a wire supportasse and was reserved only for the citizens that could afford this luxurious item that often required 15 meters of linen batiste. The fabulous wealth of this sitter is also evident by the elaborate lace coif and cuffs which have been exquisitely depicted; lace was often literally copied by artists in thin white lines over the completed clothing. The gold bracelet with jewels is a type that was evidently fashionable as it is seen in a number of portraits during the 1610s and 1620. Clothing and jewellery were prized possessions and were often listed in inventories of estates and passed down from generation to generation. There were a great number of jewellers of Flemish origin working at all the courts and cities of Europe, competing with the Italians, and then the French, adapting themselves to the tastes and positions of their patrons and the raw materials available in the country where they worked. The fashion for jewels “in the Flemish style” succeeded that of the Italian style. Cornelis van der Voort, who was probably born in Antwerp around 1576, came to Amsterdam with his parents as a child. His father, a cloth weaver by trade, received his citizenship in 1592. It is not known who taught the young Van der Voort to paint, but it has been suggested that it was either Aert Pietersz or Cornelis Ketel. On 24 October 1598 Van der Voort became betrothed to Truytgen Willemsdr. After his first wife’s death he became betrothed to Cornelia Brouwer of Dordrecht in 1613. In addition to being an artist, Van der Voort was an art collector or dealer, or both. In 1607 he bought paintings from the estate of Gillis van Coninxloo, and after an earlier sale in 1610 a large number of works he owned were auctioned on 7 April 1614. Van der Voort is documented as appraising paintings in 1612, 1620 and 1624. In 1615 and 1619 he was warden of the Guild of St Luke. He was buried in Amsterdam’s Zuiderkerk on 2 November 1624, and on 13 May 1625 paintings in his estate were sold at auction. Van der Voort was one of Amsterdam’s leading portrait painters in the first quarter of the 17th century. Several of his group portraits are known. It is believed that he trained Thomas de Keyser (1596/97-1667) and Nicolaes Eliasz Pickenoy (1588-1650/56). His documented pupils were David Bailly (c. 1584/86-1657), Louis du Pré...

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...