Part 2

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.