John Vanderbank Art

Madonna and Child Workshop of Andrea del Sarto, pseudonym of Andrea d'Agnolo di Francesco (Florence 1486 - 1530) Attributable to Jacopo di Giovanni di Francesco, known as Jacone (...

'Master of the parrot' (a painter active in Antwerp in the early 16th century, whose name refers to the parrot who always occurs in his paintings) - follower of Madonna on the throne with child (With the coat of arms of the client family in the upper part of the composition) Oil on the table 101 x 62 cm. - In frame 114 x 76 cm. The beautiful proposed work explains the typical iconographic characters of the painter called 'Master of the parrot', a conventional name used by critics to define an anonymous Dutch author of the 16th century. More precisely, it is a painter of the southern Netherlands, active in Antwerp around 1530-50, so defined for the unmistakable parrot who often appears in his works of him. In religious iconography the parrot has often been used as a Marian symbol, as it was widespread that its most common verse was "Ave", that is, the greeting of the Archangel Gabriele to Mary at the time of the Annunciation. Today the idea according to which the name 'master of the parrot' has not referred to a single painter, but rather a group that, based on the stylistic characters, carried out their training at the workshop of Pieter Coecke Van Aelst (Aalst (Aalst is widespread. 1502 - Brussels 1550), creating devotion paintings intended for a bourgeois client and concentrating their activity on a specific topic particularly requested by the contemporary market. By way of example we can mention the Virgin with the San Diego Museum of Art child where the figures, like our own, are in line, With the mannerist taste for the elegant body proportions that exceed reality, with elements such as tapered finger, wide face and thin nose. These characters also betray the influence of active artists in the region such as Joos Van Cleve...

Genoese school of the second half of the seventeenth century Circle of Domenico Piola (Genoa 1627-1703) The Holy Family Oil painting on canvas 83 x 68 cm. - in an antique frame 99 x...

Portrait of Princess de Joinville riding a Bay Horse Henri d’Aincy, Le Comte Monpezat (French 1817-1859) Painted circa 1837-9 oil on canvas 113 x 92 inches (including frame) 92 x 70 inches (unframed) Provenance – from a private royal collection This magnificent portrait depicts Princess de Joinville, the daughter of Pedro I, Emperor of Brazil and the King of Portugal. Through her illustrious family she was directly related Alexander III and Nicholas II of Russia and the Russian royal family, as well as to many of the great ruling families of Europe. The work clearly confirms Monpezat as one of the most accomplished equestrian portrait painters in France in the early nineteenth century. In terms of scale, quality and dramatic power, it must surely be considered amongst his finest works. The stance of the powerful thoroughbred - in half rear - emphasises the calm nature and courage of the Princess. Francisca of Brazil (1824-98) married a son of Louis Philippe I, the King of the French, and had three children. Born at the Imperial Palace of Saint Christopher, her youngest brother was the future Pedro II...

A Rare Jacobean Portrait of Lady Elizabeth Wheeler (née Cole), 1623 Attributed to Cornelius Johnson (1593–1661) This remarkably rare early oil on panel, presented by Titan Fine Art, has emerged as far more than an anonymous “Portrait of a Lady.” Preserved in outstanding condition—its surface retaining exceptional clarity in the lace and textiles—it has only recently been reunited with the identity of its sitter: Elizabeth Cole (1607–1670), later Lady Elizabeth Wheeler, a Westminster gentlewoman whose later life brought her into intimate royal service as laundress for His Majesty’s person. That combination—high quality, uncommon survival, a newly identified sitter, and a life that intersects directly with the last acts of Charles I—places this portrait in a category of genuine rarity. It is not simply a beautiful Jacobean likeness; it is a rediscovered historical document - legible and compelling. The sitter is presented half-length against a dark ground, enclosed within a painted sculpted oval surround that functions like an architectural frame. This device, fashionable in the 1620s, concentrates the viewer’s attention and heightens the sense of social presentation: the sitter appears both physically and symbolically “set apart,” as if viewed through a refined aperture. The portrait’s immediate power, however, lies in the costume—an ensemble of striking modernity for c. 1623 and rendered with a precision that survives with remarkable crispness. She wears a deep green gown—a fitted overgown with open sleeves—over a finely embroidered linen jacket (a stiffened bodice/waistcoat garment). The sleeves form pronounced “wings” at the shoulder, a structurally assertive fashion detail of the early 1620s that enlarges the silhouette and signals sophistication. Beneath the green overlayer, the white linen jacket is richly ornamented in gilt embroidery. The goldwork is arranged as scrolling foliate forms—looping, curling tendrils punctuated by seed-like stippling—organised into balanced compartments across the bodice and sleeves. The motifs read as stylised botanical forms with rounded fruit-like terminals and leaf elements: not literal naturalism, but controlled abundance. The technique is described with extraordinary intelligence, mimicking couched metallic thread through patterned, “stitched” marks, while tiny dots and short dashes create a lively tactile shimmer. This embroidered jacket sits above a newly fashionable high-waisted, sheer apron or overskirt. The translucent fabric falls in soft vertical folds and is articulated with narrow lace-edged bands, giving the skirt a crisp rhythm of alternating sheer and patterned strips. At the neck, a fine ruff frames the face: a disciplined structure of pleated linen finished with delicate lace. Draped diagonally across the torso are long gold chains, painted to suggest weight and metallic gleam; they function both as ornament and as a further signifier of status. The cumulative effect is controlled luxury: she is not overloaded with jewels, but clothed in textiles whose cost and craftsmanship speak unmistakably. The recent sitter’s identification rests on heraldic and genealogical analysis: the arms shown on the painting correspond to those recorded for several families in armorial sources, but when the lines of descent are tested against survival and chronology, the viable bearer by 1623 resolves to Cole, and—crucially—to the London branch. That resolution matters because it anchors the portrait to a very specific social world: London/Westminster civic gentry and Crown administration, the milieu in which portraiture served as both self-fashioning and social instrument. The recent identification of the sitter (the London Cole branch of the family) is not merely genealogical; it has direct implications for authorship. A London-based mercantile or civic-gentry family would have ready access to leading immigrant artists, familiarity with heraldic display conventions, and the means to commission oil on panel, still standard among Netherlandish-trained painters. In that context, the portrait’s age inscription and date become especially revealing. The painting states the sitter to be nineteen years of age. Yet Elizabeth Cole’s birth in 1607 suggests she would be younger if the portrait is dated as early as 1623. The key insight is that the “incorrect” age is best understood not as a mistake but as a deliberate social adjustment, a performative statement rather than a documentary one. The most persuasive explanation is strategic. Portraits of high-status unmarried women were frequently made in connection with marriage negotiations. In the early 1620s, Elizabeth’s future husband, William Wheeler, was resident abroad at Middelburg in Zeeland in the Dutch Republic. If a portrait was intended to support or facilitate a match with an educated, ambitious man—“a man of learning and letters,” —then presenting a seventeen-year-old as nineteen would subtly reposition her as more mature and more nearly a peer in age, Wheeler being around twenty-two. The portrait thus becomes an instrument of alliance, not merely a likeness: an image designed to persuade, reassure, and elevate. This reading aligns perfectly with the period’s wider conditions. The early 1620s in England were charged with anxiety and expectation: James I’s later reign was marked by court faction, diplomatic tension, and the pressures of European conflict. The so-called “art market” was inseparable from these dynamics. Portraiture flourished because it served multiple functions: it fixed lineage, advertised alliance, signalled readiness for marriage, and projected the stability of elite households in an uncertain world. For Westminster families whose power came through office, portraiture was also a declaration of belonging—proof that administrative elites possessed the cultural polish traditionally associated with older aristocratic rank. Elizabeth’s later life vindicates the portrait’s impression of steadiness. Although no record survives of her marriage ceremony to William Wheeler, wills suggest she had married him by the mid-1630s, and there are strong grounds—consistent with the portrait’s implications—for a union already in place by the early 1630s, possibly earlier. Wheeler himself rose rapidly. By 1639 he held a manor at Westbury Leigh in Wiltshire and sought letters of denization due to overseas birth, enabling him to stand as Member of Parliament for Westbury. He leased the principal manor of Westbury the following year, coinciding with his election. In government service he became Remembrancer of the Exchequer and held office across regime change, a testament to administrative skill and political pragmatism. It is Elizabeth, however, who makes this portrait exceptional. She became laundress for His Majesty’s person, responsible for the washing and oversight of the King’s personal linen—an office that, despite its domestic description, required unusual trust, discretion, and access. Her role becomes visible in 1643 when she was granted a warrant signed by the Speaker of the House of Commons to follow the King to Oxford with her servant after the outbreak of the Civil War. She continued to serve during the King’s captivity after 1646, and at Carisbrooke Castle in 1647 she and her maid were implicated in smuggling secret correspondence to and from Charles I, in service of escape plans. After the King’s failed attempt to escape in March 1648, she was removed—yet the King’s trust persisted: he was permitted to send her remaining jewels in an ivory casket...

Ancient painting depicting Jesus with the Commissioner's son (Alternative reading: St. Joseph with the Child, or the 'Paternity') Giovan Battista Salvi known as "the Sassoferrato" (1609 - 1685) circle / follower Oil painting on canvas 76 x 59 cm. -With frame in the shape of a small temple, not coeval 99 x 84 cm. The interesting canvas that we are pleased to offer you recalls the iconographic model of classic paternity, which traditionally sees Saint Joseph holding the sleeping baby Jesus...

Serenity, warmth, and harmony are at the heart of Dreamer, a captivating oil on canvas painting that invites reflection and a sense of peace. The work portrays a figure with closed e...

This exquisite portrait remained for nearly 300 years in the possession of the sitter’s descendants, preserved among the Bigg-Wither family portraits at their magnificent stately man...

Fine 19th Century Oil on Canvas Portrait of a Young Woman in large gilt gesso frame .unsigned. Identity of the sitter as yet unknown. The artist has managed to capture her ethereal b...

Jacopo BASSANO (c. 1510-1592, Italian) Portrait of a Procuratore Oil on canvas 30 ¼ x 26 inches (including frame) Provenance: Lucien Bonaparte’s Collection (as Portrait of Doge Priuli, Tiziano); Rich-mond, Virginia Museum, Portrait of Doge Lorenzo Priuli. The painting is a portrait of a man half-length, on a black background. It is a three-quarter portrait, according to a custom very common in the genre of portraiture in sixteenth century. The man is wearing a decorated...

Aftrer Anthony VAN DYCK - maybe Studio (1599, Antwerp – 1641, London) Flemish Double Portrait of George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham (1628-1687) & Lord Francis Villiers (1629-1648) Oil on Canvas 170 x 147 cm Anthony Van Dyck (1599-1641) No painter has done more to define an era than Anthony van Dyck. He spent only seven and a half years of his short life (1599- 1641) in England. He grew up in Antwerp, where his precocious talent was recognised by Peter Paul Rubens, the greatest painter of his age. He worked in Rubens’s studio and imitated his style as a religious artist, painting biblical scenes redolent of the lush piety of the counter-reformation. But soon he was on the move. In 1620, he visited London for a few months, long enough to paint a history picture, The Continence of Scipio, for the royal favourite, George Villiers, Marquess of Buckingham, and a portrait of his other English patron, the great art collector, Thomas Howard, 2nd Earl of Arundel. After a stint in Italy, making imposing portraits of the wealthy aristocracy and sketching and copying works by Titian, he returned to the Spanish Netherlands in 1627, becoming court artist to Archduchess Isabella before departing for The Hague in 1631 to paint the Dutch ruler Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange. Charles I’s invitation in 1632 led Van Dyck back to London where he was knighted, paid an annual salary of £200 and installed in a house in Blackfriars with a special jetty at which the royal barge might tie up when the King was visiting his studio. By this time Van Dyck was recognised as the leading court painter in Europe, with Velazquez at the court of Philip IV of Spain his only rival. He also excelled as a superbly observant painter of children and dogs. Van Dyck’s notoriety in depicting children led to the introduction of groups of children without their parents as a new genre into English painting (amongst other new genres). For the next 300 years, Van Dyck was the major influence on English portraiture. Nearly all the great 18th Century portraitists, from Pompeo Batoni and Allan Ramsay to Thomas Gainsborough and Joshua Reynolds, copied Van Dyck’s costumes, poses and compositions. George Duke of Buckingham & his brother Francis Villiers Painted in 1635, this double portrait was originally commissioned by Charles I, who raised the two brothers after their father, George Villiers, was assassinated in 1628. Together with their sister, Lady Mary Villiers, they enjoyed the King’s favour absolutely. Francis whose absolute ‘inimitable handsomeness’ was noted by Marvell (who was killed in a skirmish near Kingston upon Thames). The young duke who commanded a regiment of horse at the Battle of Worcester, remained closely associated with Charles II, held a number of high offices after the Restoration and was one of the most cynical and brilliant members of the King’s entourage, immortalised as ‘Zimri’ in Dryden’s Absalom and Achitopbel. As a young man he had sold his father’s great collection of pictures in the Spanish Netherlands, many of them to the Archduke Leopold Willhelm. Painted for Charles I and placed near the portrait of their sister in the Gallery at St James’ Palace. The handling of both costumes is very rich, and the heads are very carefully and sensitively worked. That of the younger boy in particular is more solidly built up than the lower part of the figure. A preparatory drawing for the younger boy is in the British Museum. There are copies at, e.g., Highclere Castle...

Lady Dormer, Mary Browne c. 1592 oil on panel 35 x 29 inches, unframed; 41 x 34.75 inches, inc. frame Inscribed 'Lady Dormore' Mary married Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton who gave birth to Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton - one of the great figures in Shakespears"s circle and founder of the Virginia company, developers of Virginia USA. Henry Wriothesley, born 6 October 1573 at Cowdray House, Sussex, was the only son of Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton, by Mary Browne, the only daughter of Anthony Browne, 1st Viscount Montague, and his first wife, Jane Radcliffe.[5] He had two sisters, Jane, who died before 1573, and Mary (c. 1567 – 1607), who in June 1585 married Thomas Arundell, 1st Baron Arundell of Wardour.[6] After his father's death, Southampton's mother married firstly, on 2 May 1595, as his second wife, Sir Thomas Heneage (d. 17 October 1595), Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, and secondly, between 5 November 1598 and 31 January 1599, Sir William Hervey. She died in November 1607.[7] Early life When his father died on 4 October 1581 Southampton inherited the earldom and landed income valued at £1097 6s per annum. His wardship and marriage were sold by the Queen to her kinsman, Charles, Lord Howard of Effingham, for £1000. According to Akrigg, Howard then "entered into some further agreement, of which no documentation can now be found, which transferred to Lord Burghley personally the custody and marriage of the young Earl, but left Howard holding his lands", and late in 1581 or early in 1582 Southampton, then eight years of age, came to live at Cecil House in the Strand.[8] In October 1585, at age twelve, Southampton entered St John's College, Cambridge,[9] graduating M.A. on 6 June 1589.[10] His name was entered at the Gray's Inn legal society before he left the university, and he was admitted on 29 February 1588.[11] On Southampton's 16th birthday, 6 October 1589, Lord Burghley noted Southampton's age in his diary, and by 1590 Burghley was negotiating with Southampton's grandfather, Anthony Browne, 1st Viscount Montague, and Southampton's mother, Mary, for a marriage between Southampton and Lord Burghley's eldest granddaughter, Elizabeth Vere, daughter of Burghley's daughter, Anne Cecil, and Edward de Vere...