Produced by Chris Curnow, Christian Boissonnas and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive)









  PORTRAIT
  MINIATURES

  TEXT BY
  Dr. GEORGE C. WILLIAMSON

  EDITED BY
  CHARLES HOLME

  MCMX
  'THE STUDIO' LTD.
  LONDON, PARIS, NEW YORK




PREFATORY NOTE.


  The Author and Editor desire to express their grateful thanks to Fürst
  Franz Auersperg, Sir Charles Dilke, Bart., Dr. Figdor, Mr. E. M.
  Hodgkins, Lord Hothfield, Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, Lady Maria Ponsonby,
  Mr. J. Ward Usher, Gräfin Emma Wilczck-Emo-Capodilista, and the
  anonymous collector, who have so kindly placed their treasures at
  their   disposal, and permitted them to be illustrated in these pages.




  _The copyright of all the illustrations in this volume is strictly
  reserved by the author on behalf of the respective owners of the
  miniatures._




ILLUSTRATIONS IN COLOUR.



  Plate    II. "Queen Elizabeth." By Nicholas Hilliard.

    "      IV. "A son of Sir Kenelm Digby." By Isaac Oliver (1632).

    "       "  "Frederick, King of Bohemia." By Isaac Oliver.

    "       "  "Queen of Bohemia." By Isaac Oliver.

    "       V. "The Duke of Buckingham." By John Hoskins, the Elder.

    "    VIII. "Colonel Lilburne" (1618-1657). By Samuel Cooper.

    "       "  "Viscountess Fauconberg, daughter of Oliver
                 Cromwell." By Samuel Cooper.

    "      IX. "Miss Christian Temple." By or after Samuel Cooper.

    "       "  "Rachel Fane, Countess of Bath and later of
                 Middlesex" (1612-1680). By David des Granges.

    "       X. "John Milton." Artist unknown.

    "      XI. "George, Prince of Denmark." By Christian Richter.

    "    XIII. "Viscountess St. Asaph (_née_ Lady Charlotte Percy),
                 second wife of George, Viscount St. Asaph,
                 afterwards third Earl of Ashburnham." By
                 Richard Cosway, R.A.

    "      XV. "Lucy, wife of William H. Nassau, fourth Earl
                 of Rochford." By Richard Cosway, R.A.

    "     XVI. "H.R.H. Princess Charlotte of Wales" (1796-1817).
                  By Richard Cosway, R.A.

    "    XVII. "Henry Tufton, eleventh and last Earl of Thanet"
                 (1775-1849). By Richard Cosway, R.A.

    "     XIX. "The Hon. Edward Percival, second son of John,
                 second Earl of Egmont" (1744-1824). By
                 John Smart (1801).

    "       "  "The Hon. Mrs. Edward Percival." By John Smart.

    "      XX. "Earl Beauchamp." By George Engleheart(1805).

    "    XXII. "Mrs. Sainthill." By George Engleheart.

    "       "  "John Jelliard Brundish, M.A., Smith Prizeman
                 and Senior Wrangler in 1773." By George Engleheart.

          XXV. "Elizabeth, Margaret Caroline, and Antoinette,
                 daughters of John Ellis, Esq., of Hurlingham.
                 Middlesex, and Jamaica." By Andrew Plimer.

    "    XXVI. "Selina Plimer." By Andrew Plimer.

    "   XXVII. "The Sisters Rushout." By Andrew Plimer.

    "  XXVIII. "Mrs. Bailey, wife of Lieutenant Bailey, who was
                 present at the storming of Seringapatam in
                 1799." By Andrew Plimer.

    "    XXIX. "Sir Charles Kent, Bart., as a child." By
                 Andrew Plimer (1786).

    "       "  "Mrs. Dawes." By Nathaniel Plimer (1798).

    "     XXX. "Charlotte, Duchess of Albany, daughter of Charles
                 Edward Stuart by Clementina, tenth daughter
                 of John Walkenshaw" (1753-1789). By Ozias Humphry.

    "       "  "Mary, wife of the eighth Earl of Thanet" (ob.
                 1778). By Ozias Humphry.

    "    XXXI. "Lieutenant Lygon." By John Smart, jun. (1803).

    "   XXXII. "Lady Mary Elizabeth Nugent, afterwards Marchioness
                 of Buckingham, and in her own right,
                 Baroness Nugent" (ob. 1812). By Horace Hone.

    "       "  "The Rt. Hon. William Pitt." By Horace Hone.

    "  XXXIII. "Miss Vincent." By Vaslet of Bath.

    "   XXXIV. "The Countess of Jersey." By Sir George Hayter (1819).

    "    XXXV. "Louis XIV." By Jean Petitot, the Elder.

    "      XL. "The Empress Josephine." By Jean Baptiste Isabey.

    "       "  "The Empress Marie Louise." By Jean Baptiste Isabey.

    "     XLI. "Catharine, Countess Beauchamp." By Jean
                 Baptiste Isabey.

    "    XLII. "Fürstin Katharina Bagration Skawronska." By
                 Jean Baptiste Isabey (1812).

    "     XLV. "Madame Récamier." By J. B. Jacques Augustin.

    "    XLVI. "Marie Antoinette." By M. V. Costa.

    "   XLVII. "Princess Pauline Borghese." By B. Anguissola.

    "  XLVIII. "Prince Franz W. Hohenlohe." By Heinrich
                 Friedrich Füger.

    "    XLIX.  "Portrait of a Lady--name unknown." By Heinrich
                 Friedrich Füger (circa 1790).

    "      L.  "Empress Maria Theresia, second wife of the
                 Emperor Francis I. of Austria." By Heinrich
                 Friedrich Füger.

    "      LI. "Marie Theresia, Countess von Dietrichstein." By
                 Heinrich Friedrich Füger.

    "     LII. "Fürstin Anna Liechtenstein-Khevenhuller." By
                 Heinrich Friedrich Füger (circa 1795).

    "    LIII. "Portrait of the Artist." By Giovanni Battista de Lampi.

    "     LIV. "Gräfin Sophie Nariskine." By Moritz Michael
                 Daffinger (circa 1835).

    "      LV. "Portrait of a Lady--name unknown." By Emanuel Peter.

    "       "  "Gräfin Sidonie Potoçka-de Ligne." By Emanuel
                 Peter (circa 1820).

    "     LVI. "Portrait of the Artist" (1793-1865). By Ferdinand
                 Georg Waldmüller.


ILLUSTRATIONS IN MONOTONE.

  Plate     I. "Mrs. Pemberton." By Hans Holbein.

    "     III. "Mary, Queen of Scots." By Nicholas Hilliard.

    "       "  "Philip II., King of Spain." By Isaac Oliver.

    "       "  "Queen Anne of Denmark." By Isaac Oliver.

    "      VI. "Queen Henrietta Maria." By John Hoskins, the Elder.

    "     VII. "Charles II." By Samuel Cooper.

    "       "  "John, Earl of Loudoun." (1598-1662). By Samuel Cooper.

    "     XII. "Madame du Barry " (1746-1793). By Richard Cosway, R.A.

    "     XIV. "Lady Augusta Murray, wife of the Duke of
                 Sussex." By Richard Cosway, R.A.

    "       "  "Henrietta, Lady Duncannon, afterwards Countess
                 of Bessborough" (ob. 1821). By Richard Cosway, R.A.

    "   XVIII. "Sir Charles Oakeley" (1751-1826). By John Smart.

    "       "  "Portrait of a Lady--name unknown." By John Smart.

    "     XXI. "Miss Mary Berry." By George Engleheart.

    "   XXIII. "Rebecca, Lady Northwick" (ob. 1818). By Andrew Plimer.

    "    XXIV. "The Hon. Harriet Rushout" (ob. 1851). By Andrew Plimer.

    "       "  "The Hon. Anne Rushout" (ob. 1849). By Andrew Plimer.

    "       "  "The Hon. Elizabeth Rushout" (ob. 1862). By Andrew Plimer.

    "   XXXVI. "Charles I." By P. Prieur.

    "       "  "Mary, Duchess of Richmond and Lenox" (1623-1685).
                 By Jean Petitot, the Elder (1643).

    "  XXXVII. "Madame Dupin" (ob. 1799). By Jean Marc Nattier.

    "       "  "The Countess Sophie Potoçki" (ob. 1822). By P. A. Hall.

    "       "  "La Princesse de Lamballe" (ob. 1792). By P. A. Hall.

    " XXXVIII. "Portrait of a Boy--name unknown." By Jean
                 Honoré Fragonard.

    "       "  "Portrait of a Lady--name unknown."
                 By Pierre Pasquier (1786).

    "   XXXIX. "A Grand-daughter of Nattier, the Artist."
                 By Louis Sicardi.

    "       "  "La Marquise de Villette" ("Belle et Bonne"). By Garriot.

    "   XLIII. "La Princesse de Lieven (_née_ Dorothy Benckendorff)"
                 (1784-1857). By E. W. Thompson.

    "       "  "Queen Hortense and her son, afterwards Napoleon III."
                 (1808-1873). By Jean Baptiste Isabey.

    "    XLIV. "Madame de Boufflers" (1725-1800). By J. B.
                 Jacques Augustin.

    "       "  "The Father of Madame Seguin." By J. B. Jacques Augustin.




PORTRAIT MINIATURES. By Dr. G. C. Williamson.


A recent French writer, in referring to the art of portrait painting,
exalted it to the highest rank, proclaiming it the greatest of all arts.
He then proceeded, by a series of curious antithetical sentences, to set
forth his opinion of portrait painting, stating that it was at once the
oldest and the most modern of arts, the easiest and the most difficult,
the simplest and the most abstruse, the clearest and the most subtle.
His statement, it is clear, contained a definite basis of truth, coupled
with a certain interesting extravagance of expression. It is quite true
that to draw a portrait was the aim of the very earliest of draughtsmen,
whether it was that of his companion or of one of the beasts of chase,
and whether he carved it on a bone, or daubed it on the wall of his
dwelling. The first endeavour, also, of a child, playing with a pencil,
or a brush, is to draw a portrait, and the very simplest outline does
occasionally reveal that an idea of portraiture is latent in the mind of
the young artist. If only simplicity of line is desired, nothing can be
more simple, while at the same time nothing is more perfect, than the
outline or profile drawing of such a great artist as Holbein, or the
work of some of the early French draughtsmen.

At the same time, the subtlety of this draughtsmanship cannot be denied.
For complexity and difficulty, portraiture takes a supreme place, and
yet, on the other hand, as the Frenchman points out in his antithetical
sentences, it is to a certain extent a simple art, and we all know
artists who are able with a piece of chalk to suggest an even startling
likeness which they would be quite unable to complete into the form of a
perfect portrait. Many a painter thinks at first that portraiture is
simple and easy, in fact he finds it so, but the older he grows, the
more does he realise that the human features are complex in the extreme,
and that the variations of expression make the difficulties in the task
of portraying them enormous. From very early times, however, there has
been a natural desire to have portraits of the persons about us, and to
have these portraits in portable form; hence, after a long succession of
vicissitudes, has come the miniature.

It is perhaps as well, even though the statement has been made over and
over again, to emphasize the fact that the actual word miniature has
nothing whatever to do with the size of the portrait. We accept it,
however, as implying that the portrait is of portable size, and we shall
apply it to such a portrait as can lie in the palm of one's hand,
ignoring the fact that the word was originally derived from "minium" or
red lead, and has come down to us from the little portraits on
illuminated manuscripts, outlined or bordered with lines of red. In two
countries especially, the art of painting miniatures has flourished,
England and France, and in these two countries there have been schools
of miniature painters, and a succession of great exponents of the art,
while in the other countries of Europe there have only been now and
again painters who have devoted especial attention to this branch of
their art, and have taken high position in it. It is more especially an
English art, because, although for exquisite grace, charming colouring,
and dainty conception, the works of the French miniature painters take a
high rank, even they must yield the palm for representation of character
to the greatest English painter of miniatures, Samuel Cooper. Moreover,
in no country but England has there been such a long series of painters
in miniature, extending from the sixteenth-century down to comparatively
recent times.

It has been the fashion to commence a survey of English miniature
painters by reference to Holbein, and it is not altogether an
unsatisfactory manner in which to start (although Holbein was not an
Englishman), because so many of his best works were painted in this
country. It must not, however, be forgotten that portrait painting was
practised by native English artists in the early part, or at least in
the middle, of the fifteenth-century, and although we know very little
indeed about these English painters, yet we have many works remaining
which must be attributed to them.

It may, moreover, be stated generally that the predecessors and
contemporaries of Holbein in miniature work were mostly of foreign
extraction, although working in England; such, for example, as Lavina
Terlinck and Gwillym Stretes. We know, however, that certain
fourteenth-century manuscripts were actually executed in England, by an
English artist, and as an example of such work, Mr. Lionel Cust, in his
preface to the English Portraiture Exhibition at the Burlington Fine
Arts Club, points out the Salisbury Lectionarium, with the portrait of
Lord Lovell as its frontispiece, representing him receiving the book
from its maker, John Siferwas. He refers also to the even better known
portrait of Chaucer, painted by Occlive on the manuscript now in the
British Museum.

There is also no question that the actual art of portrait miniature,
such as we understand it at the present day, arose from that of painting
portraits on manuscripts, and, as we have already pointed out in another
place, it may further be derived from the similar portraits attached to
treaties and to documents handed over to ambassadors. The illumination
of a portrait of Francis I. on the ratification of a treaty of peace
with England, August 18th, 1527, is a case in point. It represents the
French King in excellent fashion, delineating character as well as
portraiture, and is the work of a painter of no mean skill and
discernment. Similar portraits of Henry VIII., and Philip and Mary,
dated 1543 and 1556, and painted in England, are not of such a high
character as is the one of Francis, but still are sufficient to enable
us to regard them as true portraits, representative of the monarchs as
they were. Who first, says Mr. Cust, cut out the portrait in miniature
from an illumination, and inserted it in a jewelled or ivory case or
picture-box, it is impossible to surmise, but such a caprice, once
started, was likely quickly to become popular. Who first gave up the use
of vellum for such portraits, and found that a playing card in use at
that day was a more convenient material on which to paint, we also do
not know; nor who, again, stretched a very fine piece of vellum or
chicken-skin upon the playing-card, and used that as his basis, but the
earliest Elizabethan miniatures painted in England are done in one of
these two methods.

Prominent amongst the names of the Tudor painters stands out that of
Hans Holbein the younger, and in the art of composition it is doubtful
whether any successor has equalled him in consummate skill. The
illustration which we are allowed to give from Mr. Pierpont Morgan's
collection, and which represents _Mrs. Pemberton_ (Plate I.), is one of
the most astonishing works ever produced by a miniature painter. The
figure is so perfectly composed, and so marvellously set within the
small compass of the circle, while the modelling is so subtle and
delicate, so refined, and distinguished by such perfection of line and
economy of material that it is always a delight to regard it, and no
portrait painter would be ashamed to say that he had learned many a
lesson from the unerring skill with which this marvellous portrait is
produced. It cannot be said that all Holbein's works are on as high a
level as is this particular picture, but the two portraits in the
possession of the Queen of Holland, one representing a young lady, and
the other an older man; the portrait of the painter in the possession of
the Duke of Buccleuch; the wonderful _Anne of Cleves_ in the collection
of the late Mr. George Salting; and the companion one of Henry VIII, in
Mr. Pierpont Morgan's cabinet, are all distinguished by the same
perfection of draughtsmanship and skill of composition. In Holbein we
have, therefore, a fitting master, from whom to start the long series of
miniature painters, which in England extended away down to the beginning
of the nineteenth century, or even perhaps a little later, and in his
successor, Nicholas Hilliard, we find the first of the masters who was
actually an Englishman born and bred.

From whom Hilliard learned his art it is impossible to tell. It would be
most interesting could we decide if he ever came into contact with
Holbein, and hardly less so were we able to determine that any other
master first gave him lessons in this fascinating art. That he began
painting as quite a boy constitutes almost our first fact respecting
him, and that is proved by his own portrait at the age of thirteen,
signed with the young painter's initials in the usual conjoined form,
and dated 1550. Of his history we know that Hilliard was the son of a
man who was the High Sheriff of Exeter in 1560, Richard Hilliard by
name, and that his mother was Laurence, the daughter of John Wall, a
goldsmith of London. The statement that the father became High Sheriff
is authorised by the inscription on the case belonging to Lord De L'Isle
which at one time contained a portrait of the father executed by the
son, and Walpole gives us the information respecting Hilliard's mother,
corroborated by the fact that the painter named his son Laurence after
his own mother. We also know that he married twice, as the portrait of
his first wife Alicia Brandon at the age of twenty-two is in the Duke of
Buccleuch's collection, and the inscription upon it, evidently added by
the painter after his wife's death, tells us that he married again. Who
his second wife was we do not know, but it seems probable that he
survived her, because she is not mentioned in his will, and in it he
constitutes his son Laurence his sole heir and executor. He was always
spoken of with great respect by his contemporaries, is styled
"Gentleman" or "Mr.", and his illness in 1610 is carefully referred to
in the State Papers; while James I., when he gives him the Royal Warrant
of painting, expressly styles him "our well-beloved Gentleman, Nicholas
Hylliard." It seems probable that by trade he was originally a
goldsmith, and his portraits show us that the craft of the goldsmith had
exercised a great influence over his life. In his delicate miniature
portraits Hilliard never forgot his original craft, and even went so far
upon occasion as to introduce what was distinctly jeweller's work into
the portraits themselves. There is, for example, an actual diamond,
minute certainly, set in one of his portraits, and the raised work
representing jewels in other portraits is wrought with such skill and
delicacy that only a goldsmith could encompass it. We know that he took
Holbein as his model, for he himself says so, but his work is very
different from that of the great Swabian. It is ornamental and
decorative, very delicate, and elaborate, but flat and shadowless, and
altogether lacking in the marvellous subtle modelling which marks out
the work of Holbein. It resembles, in fact, more nearly the work of the
early illuminators. It seems probable that Hilliard was not only a
skilful miniature painter, but also an actual working goldsmith, and
responsible for many of the extraordinary frames in which his portraits
were set. Miss Helen Farquhar has with great skill elaborated a theory
which tends to prove this, and which appeared in a recent issue of the
"Numismatic Chronicle." Certain jewels and miniature cases have been in
the past attributed to the artist, and the result of Miss Farquhar's
investigation is to make it more clear that such attribution has been
accurate. Hilliard painted Queen Elizabeth many times, and amongst our
illustrations will be found a portrait of the Queen (Plate II.) from the
cabinet of a well-known collector, which sets forth the artist's
peculiar technique. We also present an interesting example from Mr.
Pierpont Morgan's collection which has been called a portrait of _Mary
Queen of Scots_ (Plate III., No. 2). It is dated 1581, and is certainly
one of the few portraits which seems to stand the test of comparison
with the well-known drawing and miniature of Mary Stuart attributed to
Clouet. It is undoubtedly the work of Hilliard, and of remarkable
excellence, and takes its place amongst the more or less mysterious
portraits bearing the name of the ill-fated Queen.

Hilliard died in 1619, and appears to have been succeeded in his royal
appointments and his professional work by his son Laurence, whose
paintings so closely resemble those of the father that it is not always
easy to distinguish the work of the two men. Very few of Laurence
Hilliard's works are signed; there are two belonging to Earl Beauchamp,
and one in the collection of Mr. Pierpont Morgan. The main feature of
the son's work consists in the beauty of the calligraphy in the
inscriptions around the portraits. It is clearer than the more formal
handwriting of the father, but florid, full of exquisite curves and
flourishes, and very elaborate, while the colour scheme adopted by the
son is distinctly richer and more varied than that used by the father,
and the composition is not quite so rigid and hard as was that of
Nicholas.

The two Hilliards were, however, succeeded by two far greater men--the
Olivers. One of them, Isaac, the father, was certainly Nicholas
Hilliard's pupil, as the fact is mentioned more than once in Haydock's
preface to his translation of Lomazzo. It seems to be possible that some
of Isaac Oliver's works were copies of those of his master, and copies
so accurately executed that it is not quite easy to determine respecting
them. In the cabinet of Mr. Pierpont Morgan there is, for example, a
miniature of Arabella Stuart which came from Walpole's collection. It
has always borne the name of Hilliard, and Walpole himself was careful
in the attributions he gave to his portraits, but in the Rijks Museum at
Amsterdam there are two other portraits of the same lady, one of which
is stated to be signed under the frame with the initials of Isaac
Oliver, and there are two more, even more closely resembling it, in the
collection at Sherborne Castle. The Morgan portrait is very
characteristic of Hilliard, and the two in Amsterdam closely resemble
it. Our suggestion for a solution of the difficulty is that the two
Dutch portraits are early copies by Oliver from his master's work.
Oliver was an extremely expert painter, and a far more clever man than
Hilliard, for the pencil drawings of the painter and his wife, which
belong to the Earl of Derby, reveal him as a draughtsman of consummate
skill. He was probably of Huguenot descent, the son, it is believed, of
a certain Peter Olivier (or Oliver), a native of Rouen, who was residing
in London in 1571, and we may take it that his birth was in about 1566;
his death occurred in 1617, and he was buried in the church of St.
Anne's, Blackfriars.

Amongst our colour plates are two delightful portraits by him
representing _Frederick, King of Bohemia, and his Wife_, who was known
in England as the "Queen of Hearts," signed miniatures from the
collection of Sir Charles Dilke (Plate IV., Nos. 2 and 3). In the
monotone illustrations there appear two remarkable works by this painter
from the collection of Mr. Pierpont Morgan. One represents _Philip II.,
King of Spain_ (Plate III., No. 1), a fine portrait, set in an elaborate
locket of rock-crystal and enamel work, upon the reverse of which is a
representation of the Crucifixion in grisaille. This portrait has an
interesting history, because it was given by the king to the Duke of
Osuna, and acquired from the Osuna family, quite recently. It bears a
motto which may roughly be translated "He who gives himself, gives not a
little thing," words which are eminently characteristic of the pride of
the Spanish monarch. The other portrait is of hardly less interest. It
depicts _Queen Anne of Denmark_ (Plate III., No. 3), who was painted
over and over again by Isaac Oliver, and who can always be readily
distinguished by the jewels which she wore on her elaborate high collar
or ruff. Amongst them invariably appears a representation of a sea-horse
or a dolphin. This may perhaps have some allusion to her Scandinavian
ancestry, but, in any case, it was a favourite jewel with the queen, and
hardly one of her portraits appears without it. Here, again, the case
containing the miniature is of extraordinary importance, because there
is good evidence for attributing it to George Heriot, who was goldsmith
and jeweller to Anne of Denmark, and was the founder of the great
hospital and school which still bear his name in Edinburgh, while to the
present generation he is perhaps better remembered as a character in Sir
Walter Scott's "Fortunes of Nigel," in which delightful work he appears
as "Jingling Geordie." There are portraits of Oliver himself in
existence, and a delightful one of his son, while amongst the collection
of the Queen of Holland there is one that is said to represent his wife.
The most notable series of the works of this painter is perhaps that
which is generally known as the Digby series. Walpole tells the story of
the discovery of these miniatures. He says that they were in a garret in
an old house in Wales, enclosed in ebony and ivory cases, and locked up
in a wainscot box, in which they were as well preserved as though only
just painted. He was greatly excited about them, and was able to secure
the entire collection, first buying from one owner the greater part of
the collection, and then securing by a second purchase the remainder
from the lady who shared them with the other heir. They were all sold at
his sale at Strawberry Hill, and some of the finest of the portraits
passed into the collection of the late Baroness Burdett-Coutts, others
went to Mr. Holford, and many back again to the Digby family, who would
gladly have purchased the whole, but were unable to afford the prices
paid by the Baroness Burdett-Coutts, then Miss Angela Coutts. One little
portrait was bought by Mr. Wentworth Dilke, and now belongs to Sir
Charles Dilke, it represents one of the sons of Sir Kenelm Digby, and is
a charmingly graceful little work, by the kind permission of its owner
illustrated in these pages (Plate IV., No. 1).

The work of Peter Oliver cannot readily be distinguished from that of
the father, save for the signature, and is as worthy of praise in every
respect, even if it is not more so. That of the father is a little
sterner and more forcible than the work of the son, but Peter Oliver is
not only known by his delightful miniatures, but also by the copies in
miniature size and style which he prepared for Charles I., and which
represented some of the great pictures in the King's collection. Several
of these copies still remain at Windsor Castle, others are scattered in
various collections, and in some instances they are of peculiar
importance. For example, there is one in Mr. Pierpont Morgan's
collection, representing the marriage of St. Catherine, by a Venetian
painter, probably Titian or Palma Vecchio, which is apparently the only
record of a vanished painting at one time in the King's collection, but
later on sold into Spain, and which there perished in a fire at Seville.

A curious story is told by Horace Walpole concerning some miniatures by
Peter Oliver. He says that Vertue handed down the information that
Charles II. being very anxious to re-purchase the portraits which had
been dispersed on the execution of his father, was told that the widow
of Peter Oliver had taken back some of the miniatures, and had them in
her possession. The King went to Isleworth to see her, disguising
himself that he should not be known, and she showed him several works by
her husband. He was pleased with them and tried to purchase them, but
the lady stated that she was anxious to submit them to the King, and if
he did not buy them, a price should be named for their disposal. The
King then discovered himself to her, and at once she showed him many
more miniatures which she had not shown to anyone else, and King Charles
desired to acquire them all. She would not, however, quote a price to
him, but promised to look over her husband's books, and let His Majesty
know what prices had been paid to Peter Oliver by Charles I. The King
took away the miniatures with him, and afterwards sent one of the grooms
of the bedchamber to Mrs. Oliver, offering her a thousand pounds for
them, or an annuity of £300 for her life. She chose the latter, but
after some few years, hearing that a great many of the miniatures had
passed out of the King's possession, and had been given by him to the
various ladies at the Court, Mrs. Oliver, who was given to express
herself in somewhat blunt language, said that if she had thought the
King would have given the miniatures to his mistresses and illegitimate
children he should never have had them. Her remark, which was couched in
very strong language, was carried by someone to the Court. The poor
woman's annuity was at once stopped, and she never again received it.

Following Isaac and Peter Oliver in chronological survey, and
necessarily omitting reference to some of the less important painters,
we come to the name of a man of considerable eminence in his profession,
John Hoskins. To a certain extent he has been overshadowed by the
extraordinary merit of his nephew and pupil, Samuel Cooper, but Hoskins
was a very great painter himself, and his work marks the beginning of
the broader and more powerful English miniature portraiture, as
distinguished from the minute work of the men who had been trained under
the influence of illuminators, and whose miniatures were too full of
detail to be entirely satisfactory. There is no doubt that, as Walpole
says, the carnations used in the faces painted by Hoskins are too bricky
in colour, but the whole effect of the portrait is simple and dignified,
and there is, for the first time in English miniature portraiture, a
nobility of treatment and a sober grandeur of effect, extraordinarily
impressive. The portrait of the _Duke of Buckingham_ (Plate V.) from a
well-known collection, illustrated in colour, well sets forth the
dignity of Hoskins' works. It is an exceedingly fine miniature, quiet in
colouring, and entirely satisfactory in composition. It is signed and
dated, and, with respect to the signatures on miniatures by Hoskins, a
few words must be said. It is well also to mark that in the works of
Hoskins appears for the first time the division of the background, which
is rather a notable feature in the portraits of Cooper, who evidently
derived the idea from his uncle. The effect of this division on the
lighting of the portrait is excellent, the sitter being placed near to
a window, by which hangs a curtain, and the window commanding a view
which in many cases was adapted by the artist to some event in the
history of the sitter. As regards the signatures Hoskins adopted several
methods of signing his miniatures, combining his two initials in
different forms of monogram, or separating them with or without the
addition of the abbreviation "fc." Until quite recently the statement
made by Vertue that Hoskins had a son, was incapable of proof; although
the fact that the contemporary inscriptions on some of the miniatures at
Ham House speak of "Old Hoskins," implies that there must have been a
younger man of the same name, and it was thought that the variety of
signatures might help clear up the doubtful question, and that perhaps
the father adopted a certain method of signing his portraits, and the
son another form of signature. Fortunately, however, in the collection
of Mr. Pierpont Morgan, there appears a portrait of the Duke of Berwick,
signed with conjoined initials, and bearing upon it an inscription,
stating not only who it represented, but actually when it was painted.
This miniature proved to contain the missing link of evidence, because
there was no question about its authenticity, its accurate attribution,
or its signature, but as it was painted in 1700, while we know that the
elder Hoskins was buried in 1664, we have in it definite information,
not only of the existence of the son, but of the fact that he was
painting miniatures thirty-six years after his father had died. The same
notable collection contains many works by the elder Hoskins, but only
this one which can be definitely attributed to his son. The collections
at Ham House and Montagu House are very rich in works by Hoskins, those
at the former place being distinguished by delightful contemporary
inscriptions on the backs of almost every portrait, recording in many
instances the price paid to the artist for it. Of the works at Montagu
House, one of the finest represents Charles II. in his youth, and in the
collection at Ham is perhaps the largest work which Hoskins ever
painted.

A particularly good example of the work of this master is the portrait
of _Queen Henrietta Maria_ (Plate VI.) from the Pierpont Morgan
collection, and this miniature is the more interesting because
apparently it has never been re-framed, for not only is the metal frame
the contemporary one, but it possesses its original bevelled glass, the
oval divided into a series of curved segments, each of which has its
polished bevelled edge. Waller, in 1625, spoke of the Queen in these
words:--

  "Such a complexion and such radiant eyes,
  Such lovely motions and such sharp replies,
  Beyond our reach, and yet within our sight,
  What envious power has placed this glorious light?"

We need not, perhaps, accept the praises of the poet, but at least we
may admire the quiet sweetness of the Queen's face in this charming
portrait, and recognise the skill and dexterity with which it is
delineated.

Trained and educated by Hoskins was Samuel Cooper, preeminently the
greatest miniature painter that England ever produced, and in the
opinion of many critics the noblest miniature painter of Europe. We know
comparatively little about Cooper's history, but there are few artists
concerning whom it would be more desirable to have information.
Fortunately, Pepys mentions him several times in his wonderful diary;
especially with reference to the portrait of Mrs. Pepys which her
husband commissioned. He was evidently a great admirer of the work of
Cooper, although, as regards this particular portrait, he does not
appear to have been perfectly satisfied with the likeness. He says he
was not "satisfied in the greatness of the resemblance, nor in the blue
garment, but it was most certainly a most rare piece of work as to the
painting," and he tells us the exact price that Cooper charged him, and
adds that he sent him the money that night that he might be out of debt.
Aubrey calls Cooper "the prince of limners of his age." Ray the
naturalist, in writing to Aubrey, refers to a miniature portrait
presented to the Ashmolean Museum as "a noble present and a thing of
great value." Evelyn calls him "the rare limner" and describes the visit
which he paid to the King's private room, where he found Cooper at work
painting the royal portrait, and had the honour to hold the candle while
it was being done, as Cooper, he says, "chose the night and candle-light
for better finding out the shadows." To all this chorus of praise
Walpole adds his voice, and tells us that, in his opinion, Cooper's
works were so fine that they were perfect nature, and that if "a glass
could expand Cooper's pictures to the size of Vandyck's, they would
appear to have been painted for that proportion," adding that "if the
Cooper portrait of Cromwell could be so enlarged, I do not know but
Vandyck would appear less great by the comparison." Even with this
criticism, Walpole is careful not to be entirely eulogistic, and he
points out with unerring discrimination that, although the heads in
Cooper's portraits were so fine, he yet possessed a lack of skill in
draughtsmanship where other portions of the body were concerned, and,
especially as regards the hands, he had a curious want of grace and
accuracy, His faces, however, are superb, and well deserve all the
praise that can be given to them. They have been called noble and
masterly, and the words are befitting. The two portraits representing
_Charles II._ and _The Earl of Loudoun_, which we present from the
Pierpont Morgan collection (Plate VII.), and the two in colour,
depicting _Colonel Lilburne_ and _Lady Fauconberg_, from the collection
of Mr. Hodgkins (Plate VIII.), will well set forth the dignity and power
possessed by this great master. His largest miniature is the portrait of
Charles I. at Goodwood, and there is a somewhat smaller replica by the
master's own hand in the Rijks Museum at Amsterdam. The Earl of Exeter
possesses one of his rare half-length portraits, depicting Elizabeth,
Countess of Devonshire, as a girl, and in the Victoria and Albert Museum
is a large square portrait of the painter, by himself. With these
exceptions, the majority of Cooper's works are ovals, varying in size,
representing the head and shoulders only, and almost all the great
collections of miniatures possess examples by the painter. As a rule,
his colours have stood extraordinarily well; in some instances, however,
they have faded, but it has generally been owing to damp or to
indifferent treatment on the part of the owners of the portraits. In Mr.
Pierpont Morgan's collection one miniature representing _Lord Loudoun_
(Plate VII., No. 2) is in extraordinarily perfect condition, but for a
couple of generations it was lost sight of behind some oak panelling and
has only recently come to light. Another very fine one, in the same
collection, represents _Charles II._ (Plate VII., No. 1). Cooper's
method of painting is very interesting, and as he has left behind
several unfinished portraits, we are enabled to study it with
considerable accuracy. It is clear that he commenced to draw the head
and figure in brown, and, as a recent writer has pointed out, painted in
the shadows with transparent sienna, and the half-tones with a pure grey
blue. His work is executed upon vellum as a rule, but sometimes upon
cardboard, and his flesh tints are nearly always transparent, although
occasionally they are upon a white background, and in some few rare
instances, where he desired special effect, he used opaque colours.
Several of his portraits he has never carried beyond the early stages.
They are only sketches, but such sketches as no one else could have
done, exquisitely rendered, full of palpitating life. This is especially
the case with the portrait of the Duke of Albemarle at Windsor, and with
one in the same collection representing the Duke of Monmouth; with that
of Oliver Cromwell, at Montagu House, and with an extraordinary little
sketch, which we illustrate in colour, by permission of Sir Charles
Dilke (Plate IX., No. 1). This also came from Strawberry Hill, where it
was bought by the grandfather of its present owner, and it offers a
bewildering problem to the student. Walpole declares, in an inscription
on the back of it in his own handwriting, that it represents "Miss
Temple, Maid of Honour to the Duchess of York, second wife of Charles
Lyttelton," and that it was the work of Gervase Spencer, after an
original painted by Cooper, in the possession of Lord Lyttelton, and
Walpole ought to have known what he was talking about. It is quite
possible that he is correct, but the original portrait from which this
sketch is said to have been made is not now in the possession of the
Lyttelton family, and the miniature itself bears such a striking
resemblance to the work of Cooper that it is difficult to believe that
it is a copy by anyone at all. We know how constantly Cooper's work was
copied, one of the finest examples of such repetition being the
well-known work at Montagu House by Mrs. Ross, a portrait of the Duke of
Monmouth, but there is no example known to us of an eighteenth-century
painter copying the work of Cooper with the exception or this one, if
Walpole's statement is correct. Another curious circumstance about the
inscription is that Walpole has made an error in the name. It was not
Charles but Thomas Lyttelton who married Christian Temple. She was the
daughter of Sir Richard Temple of Stowe, and the heir of Viscount
Cobham; thus it was through her that the Viscounty and Barony of Cobham
came to the family.

As we have already written very fully in another place, we are quite
unable to accept the series of unfinished miniatures at the Victoria and
Albert Museum as being the work of Cooper. There is no external evidence
whatever in favour of the tradition. They are painted on a very smooth
cardboard, quite a different material to that used by Cooper, and on the
back of one of the portraits is an inscription in the same handwriting
as is the one on the copy by Mrs. Ross at Montagu House, and apparently
signed by the same person. It is quite possible that in the collection
the portrait of Lord Brooke (which was not contained in the pocket-book
when the original purchase was made) may be a genuine work by Cooper,
very likely acquired by Mrs. Ross, as a guide for her own work, but all
the other portraits are, we are convinced, the work of this clever
copyist, and must not be attributed to the master himself. In the course
of our investigations concerning a missing portrait by Cooper,
representing the Countess of Exeter, we came upon two interesting
letters in the Duke of Rutland's collection at Belvoir Castle, which
proved that this portrait was never finished. On the 9th April, 1672,
Mr. Charles Manners wrote to Lord Roos in the following terms:--"I
haesten on Mr. Cooper all I can to the finishing of my Lady Exester's
picture, and hee will surely doe it, God willing; but at the present the
King and the Duke have put severall things into his hands which take him
off from all else." Then again, on the 4th May, Mr. Manners wrote again
to Lord Roos respecting the same portrait, and he then stated that
although Mr. Cooper had promised "with all imaginable respect and
kindeness to finish it out of hand, and actually begun it, he just then
fell dangerously sicke, and confyned to his bed, and I very much feare
hee cannot possibly outlive three days." As a matter of fact, Cooper did
not live a day after this letter had been sent, for from Mary Beale's
diary we have the information that he died on the 5th May, the diarist
writing as follows:--"Sunday, May 5th, 1672, Mr. Samuel Cooper, the most
famous limner of the world for a face, dyed." The two letters from which
these quotations are taken are to be found in facsimile in the catalogue
of Mr. Pierpont Morgan's collection of miniatures. Other odd facts
concerning this great painter we learn from Pepys and certain
contemporary records. We know that he was an excellent musician, playing
well on the lute, and a clever linguist, speaking French with ease. He
resided in Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, and frequented the Covent
Garden coffee-house; he was a short, stout man of a ruddy countenance,
was married and had one daughter. The Duke of Portland's collection at
Welbeck contains the portrait of his wife Christina, and in another
collection there is a portrait of his daughter, both fine paintings by
the master himself. Christina Cooper was a Miss Turner, and her other
sister, Edith, married the father of Alexander Pope. Mrs. Cooper was
Pope's godmother and taught him his letters, and to her godson she
bequeathed a "painted china dish with a silver pot and a dish to set it
in," as well as the reversion of her books, pictures and medals, with
Samuel Cooper's "grinding stone and muller," and some of his portrait
sketches.

It is not quite certain that Cooper was born in England; we know the
date of his birth, 1609, but we have no certain evidence that he was an
Englishman by birth, although there is every probability that this was
the case. He was, however, for a while in France, and he was certainly
in Holland, and possibly in Sweden also, where his brother, Alexander
Cooper, also spent some time. It was in Sweden that we were able to
discover a good deal of information respecting Alexander Cooper, and
notably a statement concerning his account for certain royal portraits
in his own handwriting. Samuel Cooper's appearance is known to us by the
portraits in the Victoria and Albert Museum, but an even more
interesting sketch of him is in the Pierpont Morgan collection, painted
in sepia, on a piece of paper which has been twice folded. An
inscription, which we believe to be in his own handwriting, is at the
back of a portrait at Welbeck Abbey, and is to the effect that the
picture in question, and one or two previous ones, were done for a Mr.
Graham, but had not been paid for at the time the artist was writing.

There is hardly a miniature by this eminent man which is not worth
careful consideration, and in the power of delineating character and
setting before us the actual feelings of his sitters, Cooper had no
rival, while one of the great features of his work is its amazing
variety. Moreover, the manner in which he adapted his technique, his
colour scheme, and his ideas of composition to the special circumstances
of the person whom he had to delineate, is very remarkable. His
portraits of men are perhaps more attractive than those of women,
although he was well able to convey the fascination of a woman's face;
but the strong, rugged men of his period were portrayed by him with
quite extraordinary power, and he created a method of portraiture
entirely his own, and filled it with individual characteristics. Two
splendid examples are amongst our illustrations in colour (Plate VIII.),
_Lady Fauconberg_ and _Colonel Lilburne_, both from the collection of
Mr. Hodgkins.

Of his contemporaries it will suffice to mention one or two, and perhaps
the best of them was David des Granges, whose work is represented in our
illustrations in colour by a portrait of _Rachel Fane, Countess of
Bath_, from the collection of Mr. Hodgkins (Plate IX., No. 2). Of this
artist and his parentage we know a little, thanks to the researches of
Mr. Lionel Cust in the registers of the Huguenot Church in London. It
seems probable that Des Granges, although baptised in the Huguenot
faith, did not continue in that communion, because in 1649 he is
mentioned in some papers belonging to the French Dominicans as a
Catholic, and he was a very close friend of the celebrated artist Inigo
Jones, who was also a Catholic. The portrait of the architect by David
des Granges, representing Inigo Jones at the age of 68, is at Welbeck
Abbey, signed with the initials D.D.G., and is one of the best works by
him with which we are acquainted.

For the works of Faithorne or Loggan, Flatman or Lens, we must refer our
readers to more elaborate books on miniature painting, and hasten
forward towards the eighteenth century. Before we do so, however, it may
be of interest that we should refer to an illustration in colour of a
miniature which has not hitherto been represented in any book on this
subject. It is a portrait which has been bequeathed through various
owners as a likeness of _John Milton_ (Plate X.), and there is a good
deal of evidence to support this very interesting attribution. It came
from the Woodcock family, who state that it has been handed down in
direct succession from Catherine Woodcock, whom Milton married as his
second wife on the 12th of November 1656. She was the daughter of a
Captain Woodcock, of Hackney, and the former owners of the miniature
stated that their family home was in Hackney. Mrs. Milton had a baby
girl on October 19th, 1657, and she and her child died in February 1658,
when the miniature was given to her niece, who is stated to have been
present at the confinement, and from her it came to its late owners, who
only parted with it when actually compelled so to do. It therefore
belonged to the Mrs. Milton who is immortalised by the poet in his
twenty-third sonnet, where he speaks of her as

  "My late espousèd saint,
  Brought to me like Alcestis from the grave,"

And adds

  "... once more I trust to have
  Full sight of her in Heaven without restraint."

He says she

  "Came vested all in white, pure as her mind
  Her face was veiled; yet to my fancied sight
  Love, sweetness, goodness, in her person shined
  So clear, as in no face with more delight.
  But, oh! as to embrace me she inclined,
  I waked, she fled, and day brought back my night."

If, as seems most probable, the attribution of this portrait is correct,
it gives us a view of Milton at a period of his life of which we have no
other portrait, for it must have been painted when he Was about 48, and
it bears out Aubrey's remarks about him, in which he speaks of his
reddish hair, of his "exceeding fayre complexion," of his oval face, and
tells us that he was "a spare man." Apparently it was never engraved,
and Deborah Milton seems to have known nothing about it, but as she was
quite a child when her father's second wife died, and as the portrait
passed away from the Milton family so quickly, it is very natural that
we should have no other record of it than the miniature itself.

We now come to the eighteenth century, and without referring in detail
to the men who preceded the foundation of the Royal Academy, would just
mention one of the prominent miniature painters of the early days of the
century, Christian Richter by name. He was the son of a Swedish
silversmith who came to England in the time of Queen Anne, and settled
down with his brother, who was a medallist and a die-sinker. His work is
luminous and distinguished, marked by rather an excessive brilliance of
red in the carnations, but by a very handsome colour scheme as a rule;
the example we give in our colour plates, the portrait of _Prince
George of Denmark_, the consort of Queen Anne (Plate XI.) from the
Hodgkins collection, setting forth his characteristics in a satisfactory
fashion.

The catalogues of the Royal Academy are full of the names of miniature
painters. The period of its foundation was prolific in the number of
limners it produced. Miniature painting was the fashion. There were
half-a-dozen important painters, and two or three hundred lesser men.
The greater men stand out distinctly. Of the lesser men, many are only
names to us. Here and there we have scraps of information respecting
their history, details concerning the place where they resided, a few
dates, and now and again an inscription on the back of a miniature to
guide us; but of the vast majority of those who exhibited at the early
exhibitions we know little, and of many of them it is not necessary that
we should know very much, as their work was neither especially
remarkable, nor especially praiseworthy. In considering this period,
however, one comment must be made. As a rule, each painter was
individual and characteristic. He allowed the personal equation to take
an important part in his work, and when the expert is once familiar with
the characteristics of the painter, his miniatures can be found quite
readily whether signed or not. It is this special personal quality which
distinguishes the painters of the period from the host of miniature
painters of the present day who have striven to revivify the art, but
who in many cases have become mere copyists, and have not allowed
personal characteristics to distinguish their work. With the names of
the great painters many are familiar, Cosway, Plimer, Smart, Ozias
Humphry, Engleheart, Edridge, and Grimaldi are all well known, and the
collector is more or less familiar with the names of a few of the minor
painters whose works are worth collecting, as, for example, Nathaniel
and Horace Hone, Vaslet, and others. There is neither opportunity nor
need, in an essay of this sort, to refer to them in detail, because we
are not concerned here with anything more than a broad survey of the
miniature art, and must not confine our attention to England only. The
painters of the eighteenth-century offer a sharp contrast to those of
the seventeenth, and comparison only makes the contrast the more
evident. In the work of Cooper we have strength, power, dignity; in that
of Cosway and of the artists of his period is refinement, dexterity,
fascination, a spice of flippancy and at times a certain meretricious
quality, but this latter is far less seen in Cosway himself than in the
work of his followers and admirers. The public demanded something quite
different from the artists of the eighteenth century from that which
they asked of the earlier school; the work had to be done more quickly,
and it must be more charming, sensitive, and radiant. In his skill for
giving his sitters exactly what they wanted, and in setting forth on the
ivory the dainty grace of the women of the eighteenth century, there was
no one who could approach within measurable distance of Cosway himself;
and there is a marvellous fascination about his exquisite work, an
individuality which belongs exactly to the period and represents it in
all its grace, lightness and flippancy.

Undoubtedly the nearest in merit to Cosway was Andrew Plimer, and some
of his works are fascinating in their beauty, but in charm they are
never equal to those of Cosway, and the peculiar mannerisms of the
artist prevent them from being altogether satisfactory. Plimer had very
little power of composition, and he invariably over-accentuated the eyes
of his sitters, and constantly repeated a favourite pose either of head
or figure, while the extraordinary wiry manner in which he delineated
the hair marks out his work at once. Quite as noticeable is his
affection for the appearance of his own daughters, and the very shape of
their necks and brilliance of their eyes can be seen repeated over and
over again in his portraits of other sitters. Less than most of his
contemporaries was he able to break away from a strong personal
characteristic; and eventually it became a species of obsession with
him, so that his female portraits strikingly resemble one another.

John Smart was a painter of a different type, serious, solid,
painstaking. His facial modelling is extraordinary in its accuracy, and
his works, like those of Engleheart, appear to have been preferred by
the more serious persons in society, whereas those of Cosway and Plimer
were particularly appreciated by the gay and frivolous ladies of the
Court circle, whose sun and centre was the Prince Regent.

There are miniatures by Cosway which are of pre-eminent beauty, so
lightly and with such exquisite skill are they floated upon the ivory.
The quality of the material had, of course, an intimate connection with
the art of the painter. The seventeenth-century artists knew nothing of
the brilliant surface of ivory, although it is possible that one at
least of them had an inkling that a more luminous material than vellum,
cardboard, or chicken-skin, could be found. There are two miniatures in
existence, one of which is in the possession of the author of these
pages, the work of Cooper, which are not painted on any of the materials
usually adopted by him. This latter is painted on what was at first
thought to be a piece of ivory, but microscopic investigation has
revealed the fact that it is polished mutton-bone, and the painter has
so altered his technique to adapt it to this curious experiment, that
for the first moment one would hardly believe the miniature to be by
Cooper at all. Its pedigree is, however, unassailable, and a closer
investigation reveals many of the master's characteristics, but it is
painted with a very fine brush, quite different to the usual broad, full
sweep of his work, and it stands out as an interesting experiment on the
part of the great painter, who was searching for some material more
suitable for a particular style of work. Ivory was not employed until
the time of William III., and it seems probable that one of the Lens
family was the first to make use of it; but, once adopted, its use
became very general, and in the prolific period of the eighteenth
century, almost universal.

Cosway is said to have experimented in enamel, and certainly one enamel
portrait, with his initials, is in existence. He drew very skilfully on
paper, and a few of his miniatures are on that material. One of his
works, signed and dated, is on silk, but all these were only
experiments, and the greater number of his miniatures are on ivory,
which material lends itself perfectly to his craft. In our opinion the
finest miniature Cosway ever produced was his unfinished sketch of
_Madame du Barry_, one of the greatest treasures of Mr. Pierpont
Morgan's collection, and by his kind permission illustrated here in
monotone (Plate XII.). It was painted in 1791 on the occasion when
Madame du Barry came over to England to recover her jewels, and on her
third visit to this country in that year. From this portrait a stipple
engraving was made by Condé in 1794, but the miniature itself came into
the possession of the Vernons, having belonged to a Miss Caroline Vernon
who was maid of honour to Queen Charlotte. It was sold in London in
1902, when it passed to its present owner, and in grace, sweetness, and
fascination, is unrivalled, even amongst his wonderful treasures.

Another delightful portrait from the same collection represents the
oft-painted _Henrietta, Lady Duncannon_, who was afterwards Countess of
Bessborough (Plate XIV., No. 2). She was sister to Georgiana, Duchess of
Devonshire, and seems to have spent a great deal of her time in sitting
for her portrait, all the artists of the day having painted her. This
miniature is remarkable for the fact that it still remains in its
original frame, a very magnificent one, richly set with superb diamonds.

Yet another charming portrait by Cosway (Plate XIV., No. 1) came from
the Truro collection to Mr. Morgan. It represents _Lady Augusta Murray_,
the daughter of Lord Dunmore, who became the wife of the Duke of Sussex,
the 6th son of George III. It was her marriage which, although twice
performed, in Rome and at St. George's, Hanover Square, was declared
null and void under the Royal Marriage Act (12 Geo. III. cap. 11). Her
daughter was Lady Truro. Lady Augusta was only painted twice, and on
both occasions by Cosway.

Our coloured illustrations include three portraits of women by Cosway,
_Viscountess St. Asaph_ (Plate XIII.), the _Countess of Rochford_ (Plate
XV.) and _Princess Charlotte_ (Plate XVI.), all of them distinguished by
Cosway's special method of painting the hair, and marked by that
inimitable grace in which he excelled.

We also illustrate from Lord Hothfield's collection one of Cosway's more
serious portraits of men, _The Earl of Thanet_ (Plate XVII.), set upon
the usual blue cloudy background, in this instance a trifle paler than
usual, and painted with convincing force in a very remarkable colour
scheme.

Of the work of the more sedate painters, Smart and Engleheart, we are
able to give many characteristic examples. From Lord Hothfield's
collection come a splendid pair--_Mr. and Mrs. Percival_ (Plate XIX.),
painted with that striking force which marks the best work of Smart,
upon his usual greenish-grey background, and with very subtle but
well-marked modelling in the features. His carnations were ever a little
brick-dusty in tint, and he delighted in the ruddier tones of the face,
but in depicting the shadows he had few rivals. Although there may be
perhaps a certain want of inspiration in his somewhat quaker-like method
of work, and in the very low tone of his colouring, yet there is an
honesty and a straightforward quality about it which is very attractive,
and perhaps that was the reason why Cosway in the words of praise he
gave to a painter so different from himself, spoke of him as "honest
John Smart."

Engleheart's work has a certain resemblance to that of Reynolds, and the
devotion which Engleheart felt towards the President of the Academy had
an evidently strong effect upon his own art. He copied Sir Joshua's
works over and over again, and gradually a good deal of the influence of
the great master permeated the work of his follower. His miniatures were
nobler, broader, and far better set upon the oval of the ivory than were
those of many of his contemporaries, his draughtsmanship was excellent,
and there was a brilliance about his painting of the eyes which is
particularly attractive. The large portrait of _Earl Beauchamp_ (Plate
XX.), from the collection of Lady Maria Ponsonby, is a fine specimen of
his best work; but those of _Mrs. Sainthill_ and _Mr. Brundish_, from
the collection of Lord Hothfield (Plate XXII.), are good examples of his
smaller miniatures, possessing a great deal of charm and delightful in
colour. His portrait of _Miss Mary Berry_, from Mr. Pierpont Morgan's
collection (Plate XXI.), is quite one of his finest portraits of women.
He painted both these sisters, and for a long time the two portraits
were in one case, facing one another, but they have now been separated,
and lie side by side in the cabinet. The two ladies were well known as
being the close friends of Horace Walpole, who treated them with the
greatest tenderness and affection, addressed to them many of his most
brilliant letters, and persuaded them to settle down near him at
Strawberry Hill. To them he dedicated his catalogue of treasures, and
bequeathed a considerable sum of money, and his works and letters were,
after his death, edited by Mary Berry, one of the sisters, who lived
down till 1852, and died at the advanced age of ninety. From the same
collection we have selected two delightful works by Smart, those
representing _Sir Charles Oakeley_ and a lady whose name is unknown
(Plate XVIII.), both distinguished by the elaboration of flesh tints, so
quietly and so accurately applied.

The very brilliant, if somewhat flashy, work of Andrew Plimer is
particularly well represented in Mr. Pierpont Morgan's famous
collection, because it includes the notable series representing Rebecca,
Lady Northwick, and her three daughters, all of which are given in our
monotone illustrations (Plates XXIII. and XXIV.). Plimer was an adept at
flattery, and in this particular case the mother looks hardly older than
her daughters, and the three girls are so much alike that one has to
look exceedingly closely to notice the position of the band round the
head, or of the curl which falls upon the neck, before one girl can be
distinguished from another. The same unfortunate mannerism belonging to
this clever painter can be seen in _The Three Sisters Ellis_, brilliant
works by Andrew Plimer from the collection of Lord Hothfield, and here
illustrated in colour (Plate XXV.). When closely regarded it is quite
evident that the three girls are very different from one another, but at
the first glance we almost wonder how their parents could have known
them apart. The painter himself has been led to make little changes in
their costume in order that each girl's identity should be preserved,
and our remark respecting the exaggeration of the eyes is exemplified in
these three very beautiful portraits. By the same painter is the
charming representation of _Selina Plimer_, the artist's youngest child,
from the collection of the writer of this essay (Plate XXVI.). This
miniature came from Plimer's own portfolio, and bears his handwriting
upon it. It is very graceful and light in its treatment. The Rushout
girls form the subject of the largest painting ever executed by Plimer.
His well-known group showing these three girls in one miniature now
belongs to Mr. George J. Gould, and is fully described in the life of
Andrew Plimer.

In Lord Hothfield's collection, however, is an interesting sketch (Plate
XXVII.), a group of the three sisters, evidently his first idea, quite
different both in composition and in execution to the finished picture.
It came from Plimer's studio, is unmistakably his work, and
particularly interesting as a fresh and original idea, even more
charming in many ways than the finished picture. In the latter, the
girls dress their hair quite differently to what they had it in the
sketch, and very possibly the _esquisse_ was made on their first visit
to the studio, as they stood together that the artist might get an idea
of how they looked. Another example of Plimer's work illustrated here in
colour is from the same collection, and represents _Mrs. Bailey_ (Plate
XXVIII.). It is a pleasing picture, though the curious wiriness of hair
to which we have drawn attention is very noticeable in it. One of the
prettiest pictures that Plimer ever painted of a child is the one which
we illustrate in reduced size from the collection of Lady Maria Ponsonby
(Plate XXIX., No. 1). It represents _Sir Charles Kent as a Boy_, playing
upon a drum, and is a bright, piquant little picture.

Nathaniel Plimer's work is rarer than that of his brother, and we know
very little indeed of the history of the artist. He was a curiously
unequal painter. There were times when he could paint far better than
his brother, but there are not perhaps more than two or three of his
miniatures to which this high praise can be given. His general work is
pleasing and agreeable, but does not betoken extraordinary skill. One of
the best of his ordinary miniatures is in Lord Hothfield's collection
(Plate XXIX., No. 2), and represents _Mrs. Dawes_. It is dated 1798, and
is quite a fine picture, but not equal in high merit to two works by
this master in the late Mr. Salting's collection, the finest examples of
Nathaniel's work we have yet seen.

Ozias Humphry was a greater man than Plimer, but his work in miniature
is rare. His draughtsmanship was exceedingly good, his colouring quiet
and restrained, and his technique so elaborate, with such fine stipple
work, that it has a general resemblance to that of enamel, but differs
from this latter because it is not hard in its execution; and there is,
moreover, an atmospheric quality about it very attractive. One of
Humphry's peculiarities is to be noticed in the elongated shape he gave
to the eyes of his sitters, what has been well termed "a greyhound eye,"
affording a marked contrast to the exceedingly round, over-bold eye,
which Plimer was so fond of accentuating. Humphry drew children
exquisitely, and his portrait of the _Duchess of Albany_ as a child
(Plate XXX., No. 1), in the possession of Lord Hothfield, is one of the
most delightful miniatures with which we are acquainted. In it his
accuracy of draughtsmanship is seen to perfection, and the modelling on
the face is so dainty and delicate that the miniature is quite a little
gem full of life and vivacity, while the child is represented with a
demure, amused look, which is refreshing and natural. There is a very
interesting history connected with this miniature. It was painted in
Rome in 1773, when Humphry was there with Romney, and it eventually
belonged to Horace Walpole, and was in his collection at Strawberry
Hill. He is said to have received it from Sir Horace Mann, his great
friend and correspondent, who was watching Prince Charles Edward (_de
jure_ Charles III.), on behalf of the English Government. The other
Humphry, which we illustrate from the same collection, represents the
_Countess of Thanet_ (Plate XXX., No. 2), and is an excellent example of
the manner in which Ozias painted a noble lady of a quiet, studious
character. The colour scheme in this, again, is very pleasing.

Time would fail to describe the host of minor men who exhibited at the
Academy, and it would be impossible to illustrate works by even the
chief of them. We have selected just a few; first, an example of the
work of John Smart the younger, who is especially well known for his
fine pencil work, and for some wonderful copies from drawings by
Holbein. There are very few of his miniatures in existence; and the one
of _Lieutenant Lygon_ (Plate XXXI.), in the collection of Lady Maria
Ponsonby which is signed and dated, is a good, natural, life-like
portrait, well drawn and composed. Then we would refer to Nathaniel
Hone, who was an interesting person, and deserves to be remembered
because he was the first artist in the eighteenth century to have what
we now call a "one-man show." There is not a great deal of credit
belonging to him for this adventure, because, had he not been a very
sensitive and passionate man, and painted a picture which annoyed the
Academy, the one-man show would never have come off.

In a painting called "The Conjuror" Hone was considered to have made an
attack upon the President and upon Angelica Kauffman. It was rejected by
the Academy, and in 1775 Hone opened his exhibition at 70, St. Martin's
Lane, issued a catalogue, to which he affixed a preface, telling the
story of his discomfiture from his own point of view, and appealing to
the people respecting the merits of his paintings. The result was not
particularly satisfactory, because it was felt that he had been in the
wrong. The catalogue is a very rare one, and the whole story is rather
interesting in its details.

A fine portrait by Horace Hone, the elder son of Nathaniel, representing
William Pitt is in the collection of Lady Maria Ponsonby, and appears in
our coloured illustrations (Plate XXXII., No. 2). Horace Hone was a
better painter than his father. He excelled in enamel work, and his
finest portraits are in that medium. He had a fine sense of colour and
loved rich effects of velvet brocade, satin, or fur. Another of his
miniatures is in Lord Hothfield's collection, and represents _Lady Mary
Nugent_; it is signed and dated, and the owner has kindly permitted us
to illustrate it in these pages (Plate XXXII., No. 1).

Yet another miniature from Lord Hothfield's collection illustrates the
work of Vaslet (Plate XXXIII.), of whom we know hardly anything, save
that he lived in York and Bath and that he was a clever worker in
pastel. He seems to have visited Oxford in 1779, 1780, and 1789, and
there is a good collection of his pastel portraits on paper in the
Warden's Lodge at Merton College, the portraits carefully signed and
dated; on the majority of them the artist calls himself as L. Vaslet of
Bath. There are other collectors in Oxford who have specimens of his
work in pastel, but in miniature his paintings are very rare. They are
distinguished by a cloudy, flocculent appearance, very much resembling
pastel work, and making it evident that the artist was more at home in
the use of that material than he was in water-colour.

Our very brief survey of English miniature work must end with Sir George
Hayter, by whom we illustrate a portrait of the _Countess of Jersey_,
from the collection of Lady Maria Ponsonby (Plate XXXIV.). He was
portrait painter to Princess Charlotte and Prince Leopold of
Saxe-Coburg, but is better known for his historical paintings than for
portraits, and he is almost the last of the nineteenth-century miniature
painters whose work possesses any special attraction. After his time and
that of his contemporaries Sir William Ross, J. D. Engleheart,
Robertson, Newton, and Thorburn, the art of miniature painting died away
until its revival in recent times.

The painters who worked in enamel occupy a section of miniature work
apart, although in many instances the best known enamellers painted
portraits also on ivory or on vellum, but they are especially known for
their works in enamel. There is little need for us here to do more than
define enamel work as a vitreous glaze attached by fusion to a metallic
ground, but only those who have attempted to paint portraits in enamel
can have any idea of the enormous difficulty of this method of
portraiture when fine results are desired. Of all the men who were
successful in this most complicated process, Jean Petitot stands out
supreme, and his portraits, as a rule excessively minute in size, are
distinguished by a delicacy of detail, marvellous in its microscopic
exactitude. When it is remembered that the colours were painted on to
the panel of gold in the form of a powder, only slightly mingled with a
medium, that they did not represent by their tint the colour they were
to present when fused, and that the slightest error in the fusing would
ruin the plate and cause the colours to run into one another, the
marvel is but enhanced when the exquisite works produced by this
incomparable artist are examined. The specimen from Mr. Ward Usher's
collection (Plate XXXV.), which is illustrated in colour, is a good
example of Petitot's portrait of _Louis XIV._ He painted the face of
"_Le Roi Soleil_" so often that he must have become familiar with every
detail of it, and there is hardly any collection of his works which
cannot boast of one of these wonderful little enamels. The story of the
painter himself is of considerable interest, and the details of his
religious difficulties and of his return to Geneva are well set forth in
a book about him written by E. Stroehlin, and published in Geneva in
1905; while some further special information more recently discovered
can be found in an article by the writer of this essay in the
"Nineteenth Century" for January 1908. He left behind him a wonderful
little pocket-book containing his own and his wife's portraits, and a
narrative of part of his career, written by him in beautiful
handwriting. His own portrait belongs to the Earl of Dartrey, and there
are some wonderful examples of his work in the Louvre; but the best of
his portraits are in England, and there is no collection to rival that
of South Kensington in this respect. Perhaps his most extraordinary work
is the box belonging to Mr. Alfred de Rothschild, which has fourteen
portraits upon it; but his largest, with one exception, is that of
_Mary, Duchess of Richmond and Lenox_, which we illustrate from Mr.
Pierpont Morgan's collection (Plate XXXVI., No. 2). It is signed and
dated 1643 and is 5-1/2 inches square, the only miniature exceeding it
in size being that at Chatsworth, representing the Countess of
Southampton, and dated 1642. The latter is, however, unfortunately
damaged, whereas the one in Mr. Pierpont Morgan's collection is quite
perfect. With these two exceptions, almost all Petitot's miniatures are
exceedingly tiny in size. The only other enameller whose work we
illustrate was named Prieur, and he married, as her second husband,
Marie, the only sister of Jean Petitot. Prieur was a wanderer; we find
his work in Poland, Denmark, Russia, Spain, and especially in Denmark,
where there are many of his portraits, and where he is believed to have
died in 1677. He visited England charged with commissions from the King
of Denmark, and, while there, painted a portrait of Charles II. and
another of Lady Castlemaine, both from Cooper's miniatures. He was also
responsible for a portrait of _Charles I._ (Plate XXXVI., No. 1), but
whether contemporary or not we cannot say, for so little is known of
Prieur's history, that he may have visited England before 1669, when we
know he came over to paint Charles II. In all probability, however, this
delightful work, which now belongs to Mr. Pierpont Morgan, is a copy by
Prieur from the portrait of the King by Vandyck. Prieur executed
several delightful enamel badges for the Danish Orders, and appears to
have been in high repute at the courts both of Frederik III. and
Christian V.

We have now to deal briefly with the long range of foreign miniature
painters, the chief of whom were resident in France, although not always
natives of that country. There was a regular tradition of miniature
painting in France, extending from the times of the Clouets down to
those of the great painters Isabey and Augustin. The works by Jean
Clouet were, of course, more of the nature of paintings in manuscripts,
and if we are accurate in attributing one of the great gems of Mr.
Morgan's collection to Jean Clouet himself, it adds one to the only
other seven portraits which have been, with any amount of accuracy,
given to this painter. All of the seven are illustrations in one
manuscript volume, and probably this eighth was either executed for the
same purpose, or has actually been removed from a contemporary work of
that kind. When we come to the later Clouets, François especially, we
have actual miniatures, and in several instances the drawings for the
portraits exist, also enabling us to identify whom the miniatures
represent. It would be impossible within the limits of this short essay
to deal with all those who succeeded the sixteenth-century men, and we
have to make a big jump to the eighteenth century, because it was during
that time that the most notable of the French miniature painters
flourished, and their works are by far the most important.

Nattier began as a miniature painter, and his mother painted miniatures,
and is said to have taught him his art. Later on, he became a well-known
portrait painter, but speculating in the wild schemes of John Law, lost
his fortune, and a good many of his friends. Once he took up with
miniature painting to re-introduce himself to the clients he had lost
when he neglected art for the excitement of finance, then dropped it
again, and confined his attention down to the time of his death to
portrait painting. We illustrate a delightful portrait of _Madame Dupin_
(Plate XXXVII., No. 1), the wife of a writer on finance, whose book was
suppressed by the order of Madame de Pompadour; but we remember the fair
lady who is set forth in this portrait more by reason of the fact that
Rousseau was at one time her secretary, and was very much attached to
her. The portrait shows her in the hey-day of beauty.

By Hall, the Swede, who lived in Paris, and is generally regarded as a
Frenchman, we illustrate a portrait of the _Countess Sophie Potoçki_
(Plate XXXVII., No. 2), the celebrated Greek beauty, who became a member
of one of the noblest families of the Polish aristocracy. Her story is a
strange one. She was born of Greek parents at Constantinople, purchased
as a slave by the Russian general De Witte, who made her his mistress;
but one night, losing a considerable sum of money at cards, when playing
against Count Felix Potoçki, he received an offer from his opponent to
waive all claims if the Russian general would pass over his slave to
Count Felix. The offer was accepted, and Sophie Clavona became the
property of the Polish Count, who was already deeply in love with her.
Despite the expostulations of his friends, he promptly made her his
second wife, and they lived happily together for many years, while her
heritage of beauty has been handed down through succeeding generations.
Her portrait was painted over and over again, and the example of it
which we illustrate remained for a long time in the private gallery of
the family at Warsaw, together with a replica which is still there. It
was finally sold to a French dealer, from whom it passed into the hands
of its present owner. The famous beauty is in a deep red costume, which
wonderfully sets off the charm of her countenance. Another work by Hall
from the same famous collection (Plate XXXVII., No. 3), represents the
ill-fated _Princesse de Lamballe_, "beauty, goodness and virtue
personified, but all her goodness and gentleness could not soften the
hearts of those inhuman tigers who immolated her on the altar of
Equality." Few scenes are more pitiable than that of the execution of
this beautiful woman. She had never committed any action which could
have incurred the hatred of the people, but she was the friend of the
Queen, and the possessor of considerable wealth; reasons enough to bring
upon her head the wrath of the tyrants who preached freedom to France.
This miniature is particularly charming in its domestic quality. Madame
de Lamballe is shown in her room, engaged in making a wreath of flowers,
and every detail concerning her occupation, and the room in which she is
seated, is delightfully rendered; but the whole composition is kept so
well in hand that the details do not obtrude, nor in any way draw aside
the attention from the fair countenance of the lady herself.

The work of Pierre Pasquier is very rare, and not a single example of it
is to be seen in the Louvre. He was born in 1731, and died in 1806. He
worked largely in enamel, and a great many of his portraits appear on
the wonderful snuff-boxes which were given to ministers or eminent
diplomatists. Several of them are in Russia. He was distinguished by an
unerring perfection of draughtsmanship, and this is especially set forth
in his profile portraits, one of which, signed and dated, we illustrate
from Mr. Morgan's collection (Plate XXXVIII., No. 2). It is probably the
finest example of Pasquier's work in existence, and is little more than
a sketch in black on ivory, with a steel-blue background, the ivory
being left clear where the portrait appears. We do not know who it
represents, but it was probably a study for an enamel left incomplete.
It is dated 1786, and in its rigid economy of line, exquisite low-toned
scheme of colour, and perfection of drawing, occupies an exceedingly
high place in miniature painting, and leaves us only regretful that we
are ignorant of the name of the sitter.

The example we illustrate of the miniature work of Fragonard must also
be anonymous (Plate XXXVIII., No. 1). It is a boy's portrait, and has
been said, with a certain amount of evidence, to represent one of his
own sons, it certainly does resemble a sketch of one of Fragonard's
children, which the artist has named, but not sufficiently for us to be
sure respecting the accuracy of the attribution. No one, however, but
Fragonard could have painted it, the colour is so daintily placed upon
the ivory as to give the effect of having been wafted upon the material,
and resting upon it with a feathery lightness. There is generally a good
deal of yellow in Fragonard's portraits, or else the colour scheme is
mainly grey and white, and this portrait belongs to the second division
we have mentioned. It is very pleasing, the face of a quiet, thoughtful
child, charmingly represented, and a good example of the work of one of
the greatest decorators France ever knew. Fragonard's miniatures are
rare, we may add, very rare, and probably no one has such a collection
of them as is to be found in the cabinets of Mr. Pierpont Morgan.

By Garriot, a painter who was born in 1811 at Toulouse, studied at
Madrid, and painted in Geneva, we illustrate from Mr. Pierpont Morgan's
collection a portrait of the _Marquise de Villette_ (Plate XXXIX., No.
2), better known as "Belle et Bonne," who was practically adopted as a
daughter by Voltaire, and married to the Marquis de Villette at
midnight, in November 1777, in the great man's chapel of Ferney, her six
uncles being present on the occasion. Ferney had belonged to her and her
six uncles, and Voltaire was the means of reclaiming it from the
possession of certain of his neighbours into whose hands it had
illegally passed in 1761. It was in the arms of "Belle et Bonne" that
Voltaire passed away on the 30th of May 1778, when he was eighty-four
years old.

A very interesting miniature from the same collection is the one
representing a granddaughter of Nattier the artist, painted by Louis
Sicardi (Plate XXXIX., No. 1), one of the best miniaturists of the time
of Louis XVI. Sicardi painted for over fifty years, produced a great
many delightful works, and was responsible for the decoration and
portraits that, set upon gold snuff-boxes, were such favourite presents
at the French Court.

The two greatest, however, of the painters of the French school were
Isabey and Augustin, and Isabey, who was born in 1767, forms a curious
link between the eighteenth and the twentieth centuries. He painted
Marie Antoinette, Buonaparte, the King of Rome, and the Empress Marie
Louise; he also worked for Louis XVIII., received high distinctions from
Charles X. and from Louis Philippe, and was appointed Commander of the
Legion of Honour by Napoleon III.: moreover, he had a long conversation
with the Empress Eugénie (who is still living) in 1854, the year in
which he died at the advanced age of eighty-eight. He exhibited between
1793 and 1841, painting portraits of all the eminent persons in France
during his long career. Of his earlier work we exhibit in colour two
charming companion miniatures from the collection of Mr. Ward Usher,
representing the _Empress Josephine_, and the _Empress Marie Louise_
(Plate XL.), while of his later, somewhat more florid work, almost
invariably distinguished by the presence of a light gauzy scarf which he
wound about his sitter, and which he painted to perfection, we give two
portraits, one a portrait of _Catherine, Countess Beauchamp_, from the
collection of Lady Maria Ponsonby (Plate XLI.), and the other depicting
_Fürstin Katharina Bagration Shawronska_ (Plate XLII.), from the
collection of Fürst Franz Auersperg.

One of the loveliest miniatures Isabey ever painted is that representing
_Queen Hortense and her son Napoleon III._, in the collection of Mr. J.
Pierpont Morgan. It contains autograph information in the Emperor's
handwriting attesting to its history, and is a lovely example of
Isabey's easy, graceful, pleasing work. It is illustrated on Plate
XLIII.

An interesting feature of some of Isabey's miniatures is the fact that
he worked in conjunction with two Dutch artists, the brothers Van
Spaendonck. They were expert painters of flowers and fruit, often
employed at the Sévres porcelain factories, one of them being as well a
professor of natural history and lecturer on flowers in Paris, and the
author of one or two books on flowers and flower-painting. There are
several examples of the work of Isabey in which one or other of these
brothers has supplied the floral decoration, or a group of fruit in the
background.

We now come to Jean Baptiste Jacques Augustin, one of the noblest of the
miniature painters of France. He was born in 1759, upon the same day,
although separated from him by an interval of ten years, as that on
which the great Napoleon, whose portrait Augustin was afterwards to
paint, came into the world. He came over to Paris as quite a boy, and
lived in a house in that city to which he returned many years
afterwards, bringing with him a bride, and where, as a married man, he
resided for a considerable time. For a while he found life a hard
struggle, but his rare merit soon brought him many clients, and from
about 1790 onward until the close of his life, he seems to have had a
succession of sitters, including all the notabilities of the day. He
left behind him a wonderful collection of sketches, contained in various
books, and a large number of unfinished miniatures. Some few years ago
the members of the family, in whose possession this great collection had
remained, desirous of portioning off two of their daughters, offered the
collection for sale. The Directors of the Louvre very much desired to
purchase it, as it included many works of great importance, but the
whole collection passed into the hands of Mr. Pierpont Morgan, and fills
one entire cabinet, giving a view of this artist's work altogether
unrivalled. The illustrations which we give are of Augustin's later work
rather than those of the early years, although with them is included a
brilliant unfinished sketch, representing _The Father of Madame Seguin_
(Plate XLIV., No. 2). The one from Mr. Ward Usher's collection
represented in colour is a portrait of _Madame Récamier_ (Plate XLV.),
that from Mr. Morgan's collection in monotone, the famous _Madame de
Boufflers_ (Plate XLIV., No. 1), the friend of David Hume, who
introduced the historian to J. J. Rousseau, and is so frequently alluded
to in Horace Walpole's letters. When she fled from France, Madame de
Boufflers resided for some time in or near London, and Walpole spoke of
her as the most agreeable and sensible woman he ever saw, but he was
greatly amused at her want of appreciation of his house. She had never
seen a printing press until she came to Strawberry Hill, and Walpole
arranged that on the occasion of her visit his private press should
print a few lines of French poetry in her praise. In one of his gossipy
letters we are told that Madame de Boufflers informed Lord Onslow of the
birth of Lord Salisbury two hours after his mother had come from the
Opera House, and that from Lord Onslow Walpole himself heard the news.

Of E. W. Thompson, an Englishman, who spent very much of his time in
France, and is regarded by the French critics almost as one of
themselves, we know very little, but the _Princess de Lieven_, whose
portrait he painted (Plate XLIII.), was one of the great ladies of
Europe in the nineteenth century. She was a personal friend of Count
Metternich and afterwards of Guizot, and Madame de Lieven kept up a
steady correspondence with both these statesmen, and exercised, without
doubt, a very considerable influence upon European politics.

Two artists of Italian parentage deserve mention, especially as we are
able to illustrate, by the permission of their owner, Mr. Ward Usher,
delightfully signed examples of their work. By Costa we show an
interesting portrait of _Marie Antoinette_ (Plate XLVI.) which came from
the Bentinck-Hawkins collection; and by Anguissola, the favourite
miniature painter to the court of the great Napoleon, we illustrate, in
reduced size, a fine portrait of the Emperor's sister, _Princess Pauline
Borghese_ (Plate XLVII.).

Special attention has been given in our illustrations to the work of the
great Viennese miniature painter Füger, because very little is known of
his work in England, and there are so few examples of it to be found in
English collections. The Viennese collectors seem determined that all
the finest works by Füger shall remain in their own city, and they are
prepared to give high prices in order that they may carry out this
desire. One of the chief collectors in Vienna is Dr. Figdor, and he has
been exceedingly kind in allowing many miniatures from his collection to
be illustrated for the purpose of this essay, amongst them, five by
Füger, perhaps a rather large proportion; but it has been felt that, as
the work of the painter is so little known in England, it was well in
our illustrations to err on the right side, and give several examples of
his delightful workmanship. For a long time the details of his life were
buried in obscurity, and all sorts of mistakes were made respecting his
work, which was confused with that of other painters, and in some
instances not recognised at all. It was not until 1905, when Herr Doktor
Ferdinand Laban published a very important article upon him, that
Füger's true position was apparent, and Dr. Laban was able from family
records to set right the errors of those writers, amongst whom we must
include ourselves, who had gone astray from lack of the very material
Dr. Laban was able to discover. Since then, Herr Eduard Leisching has
added considerably to our information in a splendid book he published on
Austrian miniature painters, and he has discovered many more examples of
Füger's work, who can now be justly recognised as the greatest of the
Continental eighteenth-century miniaturists. He has been called the
Viennese Cosway, but the work of Füger has very little affinity with
that of our English painter. It is far stronger and more severe, and his
more graceful portraits are richer in their colour scheme, and far more
elaborate in their decorative effect than anything ever painted by
Cosway. There are two wonderful miniatures by Füger in Mr. Pierpont
Morgan's collection, one representing three sisters, the Countesses
Thun-Hohenstein, and the other Madame Rousbaeck, a lady-in-waiting to
the Empress Marie Theresa, but Dr. Figdor's illustrations set forth in
excellent manner both the strength and the charm of this wonderful
painter. Nothing can be more forcible than the sketch of _Prince
Hohenlohe_ (Plate XLVIII.), and we realise the power and dignity of the
sitter when we regard this marvellous delineation of character. For
dainty grace it is difficult to excel the portrait of the anonymous lady
(Plate XLIX.), for strength and gracious dignity that of the _Empress
Maria_ (Plate L.), while the portrait of _Marie Theresia, Countess von
Dietrichstein_ (Plate LI.) is that of a noble dignified lady of high
position, splendid courage, and great charm, and that of _Princess Anna
Liechtenstein_ (Plate LII.) shows us a thoughtful, learned, and musical
lady, a portrait very decorative in colour scheme, and charmingly set
upon its oval of ivory.

Another painter whose work was exceedingly popular in Vienna, was
Giovanni Battista de Lampi, an Italian born near Trent in 1751, a man
very little known outside the narrow limits of the Viennese collectors.
He was a wanderer for a few years, painting in Verona, and moving on
until he reached St. Petersburg, but when in 1783 he came to Vienna, he
was received with open arms, was welcomed by the court and the nobility
to such an extent that practically for the rest of his life he resided
either in Vienna, or in various towns of Poland from which he could
easily reach the capital itself. It was in Vienna that he died at the
age of eighty, universally respected and greatly beloved. His wife's
portrait is in the gallery at Innsbrück, one of three replicas. The
original Lampi retained for himself. His two sons each had replicas, and
the remaining one went to his granddaughter, the Baroness Hell, who left
it to the museum. One of the replicas which came into the possession of
his sons is now a great treasure in Mr. Pierpont Morgan's collection.
The portrait from that of Dr. Figdor, which we illustrate in colour,
represents Lampi himself (Plate LIII.), and is not only a fine example
of the artist's work, serious, and almost solemn in its aspect, but also
peculiarly interesting as showing us what the painter himself was like.

Another Viennese miniature painter whose work we illustrate is Moritz
Michael Daffinger, who has been called the Austrian Isabey, but these
comparisons, like that applied to Füger, are of little significance.
What is of special interest with regard to Daffinger is the fact that he
adopted the manner of Sir Thomas Lawrence as his own. Lawrence visited
Vienna in 1814, and was received with great honour. While there he
painted some portraits. Daffinger admired his work immensely, and
undoubtedly some of his best miniatures are reminiscent of Lawrence.
Especially is this the case with a beautiful girl's portrait
from the collection of another Viennese collector, Gräfin Emma
Wilczek-Emo-Capodilista; and for permission to illustrate this
delightful miniature (Plate LIV.) we are particularly grateful, as it is
a charming specimen of the best work of the nineteenth century, a
pleasing portrait, and very agreeable in its colour scheme.

Daffinger had many pupils, and one of them, Emanuel Peter, exceeded all
the rest in skill. We illustrate two clever portraits by him (Plate
LV.), from Dr. Figdor's collection, in which the ladies are wearing very
decorative head-dresses. It is suggested that the two fair sitters were
relatives, probably cousins, and were painted for some exceptional
occasion, perhaps a masquerade, as the custom to wear fantastic
head-dresses for such special entertainments still prevails in Vienna.

Finally we must mention Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller, whose own portrait
by himself appears on Plate LVI. He was one of Lampi's pupils, but, like
Daffinger, a profound admirer of Sir Thomas Lawrence. His early days
were one continual struggle, and he earned his living by painting
bon-bon boxes, and by giving lessons in drawing in girls' schools, until
his skill was recognised and he had won a position for himself in
Vienna. He even went on the stage in a travelling troupe with his
beautiful wife, who was an actress, but forced the attention of critics
by his splendid portrait studies, and at length was appointed curator of
the Lamberg Gallery, became a popular portrait painter, and died in 1865
justly esteemed for his skill and ability.

Our survey of this fascinating art of the miniature painter has
necessarily been brief. There is still a good deal of information to be
gathered up concerning the eighteenth-century artists, and probably some
of their descendants possess papers and records of vast interest, hidden
away amongst family treasures. Perchance this essay may encourage some
of them to make the necessary search, and so add to the information
available on the lives and careers, especially of our English miniature
painters.

Of the earlier men there is not much chance of obtaining new information
now, but there is always a possibility that letters or sketches by such
a painter as Cooper may again come to light, and if such so fortunate a
circumstance were to take place we should delight to learn more of the
greatest of our British miniature painters, whose portraits were for so
many years ignored in favour of the more brilliant, but far less
important, works of the painters who exhibited in the early days of the
Royal Academy.

GEORGE C. WILLIAMSON.




  PLATE I
  [Illustration: MRS. PEMBERTON BY HANS HOLBEIN
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE II
  [Illustration: QUEEN ELIZABETH BY NICHOLAS HILLIARD
  FROM THE CABINET OF A WELL-KNOWN COLLECTOR]


  PLATE III
  [Illustration: PHILIP II., KING OF SPAIN BY ISAAC OLIVER
  MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS BY NICHOLAS HILLIARD
  QUEEN ANNE OF DENMARK BY ISAAC OLIVER
  ALL FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE IV
  [Illustration: A SON OF SIR KENELM DIGBY BY ISAAC OLIVER (1632)
  FREDERICK, KING OF BOHEMIA BY ISAAC OLIVER
  THE QUEEN OF BOHEMIA BY ISAAC OLIVER
  ALL FROM THE COLLECTION OF THE RT. HON. SIR CHARLES DILKE, BART., M.P.]


  PLATE V
  [Illustration: THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM BY JOHN HOSKINS, THE ELDER
  FROM THE CABINET OF A WELL-KNOWN COLLECTOR]


  PLATE VI
  [Illustration: QUEEN HENRIETTA MARIA
  BY JOHN HOSKINS, THE ELDER
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE VII
  [Illustration: CHARLES II BY SAMUEL COOPER
  JOHN, EARL OF LOUDOUN (1598-1662) BY SAMUEL COOPER
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE VIII
  [Illustration: COLONEL LILBURNE (1618-1657) BY SAMUEL COOPER
  VISCOUNTESS FAUCONBERG, DAUGHTER OF OLIVER CROMWELL BY SAMUEL COOPER
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. E. M. HODGKINS]


  PLATE IX
  [Illustration: MISS CHRISTIAN TEMPLE BY OR AFTER SAMUEL COOPER
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF THE RT. HON. SIR CHARLES DILKE, BART., M.P.
  RACHEL FANE, COUNTESS OF BATH AND LATER OF MIDDLESEX (1612-1680)
  BY DAVID DES GRANGES
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. E. M. HODGKINS]


  PLATE X
  [Illustration: JOHN MILTON ARTIST UNKNOWN
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF DR. G. C. WILLIAMSON]


  PLATE XI
  [Illustration: GEORGE, PRINCE OF DENMARK BY CHRISTIAN RICHTER
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. E. M. HODGKINS]


  PLATE XII
  [Illustration: MADAME DU BARRY (1746-1793) BY RICHARD COSWAY, R.A.
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XIII
  [Illustration: VISCOUNTESS ST. ASAPH (_NÉE_ LADY CHARLOTTE PERCY) SECOND
  WIFE OF GEORGE, VISCOUNT ST. ASAPH, AFTERWARDS THIRD EARL OF ASHBURNHAM
  BY RICHARD COSWAY, R.A.
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XIV
  [Illustration: LADY AUGUSTA MURRAY WIFE OF THE DUKE OF SUSSEX
  BY RICHARD COSWAY, R.A.
  HENRIETTA, LADY DUNCANNON AFTERWARDS COUNTESS OF BESSBOROUGH (Os. 1821)
  BY RICHARD COSWAY, R.A.
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XV
  [Illustration: LUCY, WIFE OF WILLIAM H. NASSAU, FOURTH EARL OF ROCHFORD
  BY RICHARD COSWAY, R.A.
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XVI
  [Illustration: H.R.H. PRINCESS CHARLOTTE OF WALES (1796-1817)
  BY RICHARD COSWAY, R.A.
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XVII
  [Illustration: HENRY TUFTON, ELEVENTH AND LAST EARL OF THANET
  (1775-1849) BY RICHARD COSWAY, R.A.
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XVIII
  [Illustration: SIR CHARLES OAKELEY (1751-1826) BY JOHN SMART
  PORTRAIT OF A LADY (NAME UNKNOWN) BY JOHN SMART
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XIX
  [Illustration: THE HON. EDWARD PERCIVAL, SECOND SON OF JOHN, SECOND EARL
  OF EGMONT (1744-1824) BY JOHN SMART (1801)
  THE HON. MRS. EDWARD PERCIVAL BY JOHN SMART
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XX
  [Illustration: EARL BEAUCHAMP BY GEORGE ENGLEHEART (1805)
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LADY MARIA PONSONBY]


  PLATE XXI
  [Illustration: MISS MARY BERRY BY GEORGE ENGLEHEART
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XXII
  [Illustration: MRS. SAINTHILL BY GEORGE ENGLEHEART
  JOHN JELLIARD BRUNDISH, M.A. SMITH PRIZEMAN AND SENIOR WRANGLER IN 1773
  BY GEORGE ENGLEHEART
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XXIII
  [Illustration: REBECCA, LADY NORTHWICK (Ob. 1818) BY ANDREW PLIMER
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XXIV
  [Illustration: THE HON. HARRIET RUSHOUT (Ob. 1851) BY ANDREW PLIMER
  THE HON. ANNE RUSHOUT (Ob. 1849) BY ANDREW PLIMER
  THE HON. ELIZABETH RUSHOUT (Ob. 1862) BY ANDREW PLIMER
  ALL FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XXV
  [Illustration: ELIZABETH, MARGARET CAROLINE AND ANTOINETTE, DAUGHTERS OF
  JOHN ELLIS, ESQ. OF HURLINGHAM, MIDDLESEX AND JAMAICA BY ANDREW PLIMER
  ALL FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XXVI
  [Illustration: SELINA PLIMER BY ANDREW PLIMER
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF DR. G. C. WILLIAMSON]


  PLATE XXVII
  [Illustration: THE SISTERS RUSHOUT BY ANDREW PLIMER
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XXVIII
  [Illustration: MRS. BAILEY, WIFE OF LIEUTENANT BAILEY, WHO WAS PRESENT
  AT THE STORMING OF SERINGAPATAM IN 1799 BY ANDREW PLIMER
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XXIX
  [Illustration: SIR CHARLES KENT, BART., AS A CHILD
  BY ANDREW PLIMER (1786)
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LADY MARIA PONSONBY
  MRS. DAWES BY NATHANIEL PLIMER (1798)
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XXX
  [Illustration: CHARLOTTE, DUCHESS OF ALBANY, DAUGHTER OF CHARLES EDWARD
  STUART BY CLEMENTINA, TENTH DAUGHTER OF JOHN WALKENSHAW (1753-1789)
  BY OZIAS HUMPHRY
  MARY, WIFE OF THE EIGHTH EARL OF THANET (Ob. 1778) BY OZIAS HUMPHRY
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XXXI
  [Illustration: LIEUTENANT LYGON BY JOHN SMART, JUN. (1803)
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LADY MARIA PONSONBY]


  PLATE XXXII
  [Illustration: LADY MARY ELIZABETH NUGENT, AFTERWARDS MARCHIONESS OF
  BUCKINGHAM, AND IN HER OWN RIGHT, BARONESS NUGENT (Ob. 1812)
  BY HORACE HONE
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  [Illustration: THE RT. HON. WILLIAM PITT BY HORACE HONE
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LADY MARIA PONSONBY]


  PLATE XXXIII
  [Illustration: MISS VINCENT BY VASLET OF BATH
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LORD HOTHFIELD]


  PLATE XXXIV
  [Illustration: THE COUNTESS OF JERSEY BY SIR GEORGE HAYTER (1819)
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LADY MARIA PONSONBY]


  PLATE XXXV
  [Illustration: LOUIS XIV BY JEAN PETITOT, THE ELDER
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. WARD USHER]


  PLATE XXXVI
  [Illustration: CHARLES I. BY P. PRIEUR
  MARY, DUCHESS OF RICHMOND AND LENOX (1623-1685)
  BY JEAN PETITOT THE ELDER (1643)
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XXXVII
  [Illustration: MADAME DUPIN (Ob. 1799) BY JEAN MARC NATTIER
  THE COUNTESS SOPHIE POTOCKI (Ob. 1822) BY P. A. HALL
  LA PRINCESSE DE LAMBALLE (Ob. 1792) BY P. A. HALL
  ALL FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XXXVIII
  [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF A BOY (NAME UNKNOWN) BY JEAN HONORÉ FRAGONARD
  PORTRAIT OF A LADY (NAME UNKNOWN) BY PIERRE PASQUIER (1786)
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XXXIX
  [Illustration: A GRAND-DAUGHTER OF NATTIER, THE ARTIST BY LOUIS SICARDI
  LA MARQUISE DE VILLETTE ("BELLE ET BONNE") BY GARRIOT
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XL
  [Illustration: THE EMPRESS JOSEPHINE BY JEAN BAPTISTE ISABEY
  THE EMPRESS MARIE LOUISE BY JEAN BAPTISTE ISABEY
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. WARD USHER]


  PLATE XLI
  [Illustration: CATHARINE, COUNTESS BEAUCHAMP BY JEAN BAPTISTE ISABEY
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF LADY MARIA PONSONBY]


  PLATE XLII
  [Illustration: FÜRSTIN KATHARINA BAGRATION SKAWRONSKA
  BY JEAN BAPTISTE ISABEY (1812)
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF FÜRST FRANZ AUERSPERG]


  PLATE XLIII
  [Illustration: LA PRINCESSE DE LIEVEN (_NÉE_ DOROTHY BENCKENDORFF)
  (1784-1857) BY E. W. THOMPSON
  QUEEN HORTENSE AND HER SON, AFTERWARDS NAPOLEON III (1808-1873)
  BY JEAN BAPTISTE ISABEY
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XLIV
  [Illustration: MADAME DE BOUFFLERS (1725-1800) BY J. B. JACQUES AUGUSTIN
  THE FATHER OF MADAME SEGUIN BY J. B. JACQUES AUGUSTIN
  BOTH FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J PIERPONT MORGAN]


  PLATE XLV
  [Illustration: MADAME RÉCAMIER BY J. B. JACQUES AUGUSTIN
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. WARD USHER]


  PLATE XLVI
  [Illustration: MARIE ANTOINETTE BY M. V. COSTA
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. WARD USHER]


  PLATE XLVII
  [Illustration: PRINCESS PAULINE BORGHESE BY B. ANGUISSOLA
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. J. WARD USHER]


  PLATE XLVIII
  [Illustration: PRINCE FRANZ W. HOHENLOHE BY HEINRICH FRIEDRICH FÜGER
  FROM THE FIGDOR COLLECTION]


  PLATE XLIX
  [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF A LADY--NAME UNKNOWN
  BY HEINRICH FRIEDRICH FÜGER (CIRCA 1790)
  FROM THE FIGDOR COLLECTION]


  PLATE L
  [Illustration: EMPRESS MARIA THERESIA, SECOND WIFE OF THE EMPEROR
  FRANCIS I OF AUSTRIA BY HEINRICH FRIEDRICH FÜGER
  FROM THE FIGDOR COLLECTION]


  PLATE LI
  [Illustration: MARIE THERESIA, COUNTESS VON DIETRICHSTEIN
  BY HEINRICH FRIEDRICH FÜGER
  FROM THE FIGDOR COLLECTION]


  PLATE LII
  [Illustration: FÜRSTIN ANNA LIECHTENSTEIN-KHEVENHÜLLER
  BY HEINRICH FRIEDRICH FÜGER (CIRCA 1795)
  FROM THE FIGDOR COLLECTION]


  PLATE LIII
  [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST BY GIOVANNI BATTISTA DE LAMPI
  FROM THE FIGDOR COLLECTION]


  PLATE LIV
  [Illustration: GRÄFIN SOPHIE NARISKINE
  BY MORITZ MICHAEL DAFFINGER (CIRCA 1835)
  FROM THE COLLECTION OF GRÄFIN EMMA WILCZEK-EMO-CAPODILISTA]


  PLATE LV
  [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF A LADY--NAME UNKNOWN BY EMANUEL PETER
  GRÄFIN SIDONIE POTOCKA--DE LIGNE BY EMANUEL PETER
  FROM THE FIGDOR COLLECTION]


  PLATE LVI
  [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST (1793-1885)
  BY FERDINAND GEORG WALDMÜLLER
  FROM THE FIGDOR COLLECTION]




  +---------------------------------------------------------------+
  | Transcriber's Note:                                           |
  |                                                               |
  |    Obvious punctuation and spelling errors repaired.          |
  +---------------------------------------------------------------+





End of Project Gutenberg's Portrait Miniatures, by George C. Williamson