Joseph Highmore Art

Circle of Sir Godfrey Kneller Dutch, (1646-1723) Portrait of a Lady in an Ermine Trimmed Cloak Oil on canvas Image size: 26.5 inches x 22.5 inches Size including frame: 33.5 inches x 29.5 inches A well-executed half-length portrait of a lady painted in a feigned oval, circle of Sir Godfrey Kneller. The use of a feigned oval was a device used in portraiture to give a sense of depth and add an intimacy to the painting, drawing your attention to the sitter. The subject, posed without her wig in the undressed fashion of the day, wears a blue ermine trimmed blue cloak over a white silk robe...

CHRISTOFFEL LUBIENIECKI (1659-1729) Pair of portraits of a gentleman and a lady, both in silk kimono, before a country house (circa 1680) Indistinctly signed “C.......” on a box under the man’s left hand Oil on canvas, 79.5 x 67 cm each Both sitters are portrayed wearing a silk “Japanese” coat. During the second half of the seventeenth the Japanese silk coat, an adapted Japanese kimono, became a real vogue in the Dutch elite. The exclusive Dutch trade contacts with Japan can explain the popularity of the kimono-style silk coats in the Netherlands. Everybody who could afford one, dressed in such a fashionable and comfortable coat and, like the present sitters, some proud owners had themselves portrayed in a “Japanese” coat often together with an oriental carpet to underline their standing and international connections. These portraits are the work of the Polish-born portraitist Christoffel Lubieniecki (also known as Lubienitski, Lubinitski or Lubiniecki) Lubieniecki was first trained in Hamburg under Julian Stuhr and after 1675 in Amsterdam under Adriaen Backer and Gerard de Lairesse. He specialized in landscapes, generally of an Italianate character, and in portraits. The loving execution of these contented burghers, enjoying the garden vistas of their country house, places him alongside Amsterdam portraitists such as Constantijn Netscher and Michiel van Musscher...

Flemish 1600s School The Card Players oil on oak panel panel dimensions 22.5 x 20 cm frame included Provenance: From a Swedish private collection. Condition: Flat and stabl...

Portrait of a Gentleman in Blue Coat Standing by Curtain c.1695 Attributed to Constantyn Netscher (c.1668-c.1723), not signed The gentleman in this portrait has been depicted standi...

Portrait of Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich (1754–1801), later Emperor Paul I of Russia After Alexander Roslin (1718–1793) Oil on canvas, oval, late 18th century This is an exceptionally handsome and historically resonant eighteenth-century portrait, uniting the immediacy of an intimate likeness with the authority of one of the defining dynastic images of Imperial Russia. Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich, the future Emperor Paul I, turns towards the spectator with a composed, almost conversational expression, his youthful face emerging softly from the restrained brown background. The rich scarlet of his coat, the deep blue of the sash and the flashes of gold, lace and jewelled decoration give the picture remarkable visual distinction, while the oval format concentrates attention upon the sitter’s face and magnificent ceremonial attire. Painted during the eighteenth century, the present work is a contemporary reduced version of Alexander Roslin’s monumental state portrait of 1777, now in the State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg. Roslin’s full-length original measures approximately 265 by 168 centimetres; here, its essential elements have been reformulated as a more intimate portrait suitable for display within an aristocratic residence, diplomatic household or private cabinet. Pavel is dressed in the height of European court fashion of the later 1770s. His scarlet habit à la française comprises a close-fitting coat and elaborately embroidered waistcoat, enriched with scrolling metallic ornament, floral motifs and a sequence of large decorative buttons. The shoulder is finished with a densely worked epaulette-like band, while a white linen stock and delicate lace jabot frame the face. His powdered hair is dressed in the fashionable bag-wig, drawn back and tied with a broad black silk ribbon. Although the costume is unmistakably Russian in its dynastic significance, its cut and ornament belong to the international language of court dress then prevailing from Versailles and Vienna to Stockholm and St Petersburg. In Roslin’s original full-length composition, the costume was completed by matching scarlet breeches, silk stockings, buckled shoes, a sword and a plumed tricorne, all identifying Pavel as both a prince of the blood and a cultivated participant in the ceremonial life of Europe’s great courts. Across his breast passes the broad blue watered-silk sash of the Imperial Order of St Andrew the First-Called, the senior Russian order of chivalry established by Peter the Great. The sash, conventionally worn from the right shoulder towards the left hip, proclaimed the sitter’s position at the summit of the imperial hierarchy. Superimposed upon it is the red-enamelled cross of the Order of St Anna, surrounded in the portrait by scintillating, jewel-like highlights. The cross had a particular dynastic resonance: the order had been founded by Pavel’s paternal grandfather, Duke Karl Friedrich of Holstein-Gottorp, in memory of his wife Anna Petrovna, daughter of Peter the Great. Pavel’s display of the two orders therefore asserted not only rank and honour, but his descent from the founder of Imperial Russia and his inheritance through the Romanov and Holstein-Gottorp lines. Contemporary portraits similarly identify Pavel through the blue sash and star of St Andrew and the red cross of St Anna. Born in St Petersburg in 1754, Pavel Petrovich was the only son of Grand Duke Peter Fyodorovich, later Emperor Peter III, and Grand Duchess Catherine Alexeyevna, the future Catherine the Great. Through his father he was a great-grandson of Peter the Great and inherited the Romanov and Holstein-Gottorp bloodlines; through his mother, born Princess Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst, he was connected to the extensive network of German princely houses that shaped eighteenth-century European dynastic politics. His childhood was dominated by the uncertainties of imperial succession. Soon after his birth, the Empress Elizabeth removed him to her own household and assumed control of his upbringing. Educated under the statesman Nikita Panin, Pavel studied history, geography and mathematics and became fluent in Russian, French and German. He was eight when his father ascended the throne in 1762, only to be deposed by Catherine within months and to die shortly afterwards in confinement. Although Pavel remained the acknowledged heir, Catherine ruled for another thirty-four years and excluded him from meaningful political authority. He was therefore publicly honoured as the future sovereign while being denied the practical experience of government. In 1773 he married Princess Wilhelmina Louisa of Hesse-Darmstadt, who converted to Orthodoxy as Grand Duchess Natalia Alexeievna. She died in April 1776 after a prolonged labour, together with her stillborn child, leaving Pavel widowed and the succession unsecured. A second marriage was arranged within months. His new bride was Duchess Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg, daughter of Friedrich Eugen, later Duke of Württemberg, and Friederike Dorothea of Brandenburg-Schwedt. Raised at Montbéliard in a cultivated German princely household, she converted to Orthodoxy as Maria Feodorovna and married Pavel in October 1776. The union strengthened Russia’s links with Württemberg and Brandenburg-Prussia, but also became an enduring domestic and cultural partnership. Maria was intelligent and artistically gifted, practising drawing, embroidery, ivory carving and hardstone work, while collecting books and decorative art and later supporting charitable and educational institutions. The couple had ten children, nine of whom survived childhood. Their eldest son, Alexander, succeeded Pavel as Emperor Alexander I and ruled during the Napoleonic era; their younger son Nicholas later became Emperor Nicholas I. Constantine Pavlovich became a prominent military figure and briefly stood at the centre of the succession crisis of 1825. Their daughters married into leading European dynasties: Alexandra into the Austrian imperial family, Elena into Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Maria into Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Catherine into Württemberg and Anna into the Dutch royal house. Through their children, Pavel and Maria extended Romanov influence across much of Europe. The birth of Alexander in 1777 secured the succession and prompted Catherine to give the couple the estate that became Pavlovsk, south of St Petersburg. Its Neoclassical palace, begun by Charles Cameron in the early 1780s, became closely associated with Maria’s artistic interests, family life and refined sociability. Gatchina, by contrast, reflected Pavel’s more martial character. There he developed his own court and pursued his interests in military organisation, ceremony and administrative discipline. In 1781–82 Pavel and Maria travelled through Europe as the Count and Countess of the North, visiting royal courts, artists, manufactories and antiquities collections. They acquired paintings, furniture, bronzes, sculpture, textiles and porcelain, helping to make Pavlovsk one of Russia’s most sophisticated expressions of international Neoclassical taste. Yet Catherine continued to restrict their independence, taking charge of the upbringing of Alexander and Constantine just as Empress Elizabeth had once removed Pavel from his own parents. This repetition deepened the estrangement between mother and son. Pavel finally succeeded Catherine in 1796, aged forty-two. His reign lasted little more than four years, but his Act of Succession of 1797 established male-line primogeniture and ended much of the uncertainty surrounding the Russian imperial succession. His attempts to regulate the court, army and administration, and to reverse elements of Catherine’s policies, alienated powerful members of the nobility and officer corps. In March 1801 he was assassinated during a palace coup at the Mikhailovsky Castle and was succeeded by Alexander. This knowledge lends the portrait particular poignancy: Pavel appears not as the embattled emperor of his final years, but as the elegant young heir at a moment when marriage, dynasty and the anticipated birth of a son seemed to promise stability and renewal. Roslin’s portrait should be understood within this urgent dynastic context. The Swedish painter had travelled to St Petersburg in 1775 at the personal invitation of Catherine II and was commissioned to paint monumental state portraits of the Empress, Pavel and Maria Feodorovna. The pendant portraits of the young couple presented the heir and his new wife as the polished, fertile and internationally connected future of the Romanov dynasty. Roslin recorded in 1777 that the ruling family had ordered multiple copies. At least six versions of Pavel’s portrait and twelve of Maria’s are known, and such replicas were distributed as courtly and diplomatic gifts. A pair was presented to James Harris, later First Earl of Malmesbury, then the British ambassador to Russia. The existence of numerous eighteenth-century replicas was therefore not accidental or merely commercial: repetition was integral to the commission’s political purpose. Each version extended the official image of succession from the imperial palace into allied courts, embassies and aristocratic collections. The present portrait belongs to that wider culture of dynastic dissemination. Rather than reproducing Roslin’s entire monumental setting, with its architectural balustrade, extensive Neva prospect, sword, hat and full ceremonial costume, the painter has selected the head and upper body and adapted them to an oval. This transformation changes the character of the image. The grandeur of the original remains legible in the orders, costume and confident turn of the figure, but the reduced composition produces a greater sense of proximity to Pavel himself. The face becomes dominant, and the future emperor appears less as a remote emblem of state than as a recognisable young man. The type also circulated through prints: an oval engraved version published in 1781 and now represented in the British Museum demonstrates how rapidly Roslin’s conception entered the broader visual culture of late-eighteenth-century Europe. The artistic economy in which the portrait was created differed substantially from the modern open market. In Catherine’s Russia, the most prestigious portrait production was sustained by imperial commissions, aristocratic patronage and diplomatic gift-giving. Roslin’s success was extraordinary: during approximately two years in Russia he received around seventy-five commissions, many of which had to be completed after his return west. The appetite for his work reflected both the wealth of the Russian court and its determination to present itself through the most polished international style available. Alongside imported masters such as Roslin, Russia was developing its own institutional artistic culture. The Academy of the Three Noble Arts had been founded in St Petersburg in 1757 and was elevated by Catherine in 1764 to the Imperial Academy of Arts. It recruited European teachers, trained Russian...

Portrait of a Lady, in a Black Dress with Red Satin Sleeves and Pearls English School c.1660–1680 Circle of Sir Peter Lely (1618-1680) This striking portrait is a compelling exampl...

Circle of John Riley British, (1646-1691) Portrait of a Gentleman Oil on canvas Image size: 29 inches x 24 inches Size including frame: 36 inches x 31 inch...

Portrait of a Young Lady, probably British c.1730–1740 Attributed to Jeremiah Davison (c. 1695–1745) What makes this portrait immediately compelling is its directness: the sitter’s ...

Portrait of Prince George of Denmark, Duke of Cumberland (1653–1708) c.1690–1695 Studio of Sir Godfrey Kneller (1646–1723) Few portraits embody the visual authority and dynastic sy...

French School, late 18th century, circle of Jean-Baptiste Greuze (1725–1805) Young Girl with a Basket of Fruit Oil on canvas, preparatory work, Unsigned 39 x 31 cm Provenance: Pri...

"Portrait of Frederick Hendrick, Prince of Orange-Nassau" - After Michael Jansz. van Miereveldt Dutch Golden Age royalty copy oil on canvas of van Miereveldt's iconic portrait. Excep...

This recently rediscovered portrait of Santi di Tito depicts a Florentine senator, with a letter in his hand indicating that the painting was executed in 1574 when the sitter was 66 years old. On the basis of these clues, it is tempting to view it as a portrait of Bartolomeo Panciatichi, who was painted some thirty years before by Bronzino (1503 - 1572). While the treatment of the hands recalls the Florentine tradition of Mannerist portraits, the comparison with Bronzino's portrait illustrates Santi di Tito's search for greater realism, despite the stereotyped composition. 1. Santi di Tito, Counter-Reformation painter and portraitist Santi di Tito was the great painter of the Florentine Counter-Reformation. He proposed a new artistic language that broke away from Mannerism. Little is known about his training in Florence (perhaps alongside Bronzino or Baccio Bandinelli), but this period of training enabled him to join the Company of Saint Luke, the guild of Florentine painters, in 1554. Between 1560 and 1564, Santi di Tito spent time in Rome, where he frequented the workshop of Taddeo Zuccari. This stay had a fundamental influence on his work, thanks to the discovery of the late work of Raphael, but also his encounters with the painters Francesco Salviati and Federico Barocci. Around 1565, Santi di Tito returned to Florence, where he remained until the end of his life, dividing his talents between the creation of important religious paintings and countless portraits. He became one of the city's leading painters, distinguishing himself, in particular, in the creation of large religious compositions in which the spirit of the Counter-Reformation was reflected. In 1568, Santi di Tito became a member of the Confraternity of Saint Thomas Aquinas...