Skip to main content

Full text of "The miniature collector; a guide for the amateur collector of portrait miniatures"

See other formats

















N.B. — The copyright of all the illustrations used in this book is 
strictly reserved by the author oa behalf of the respcctire 
owners of the miniatures. 

Printed in Great Britain by Butler & Tanner, Frome and London 





SOME apology is surely needed from me, for inflicting 
yet another book about miniatures upon a long- 
suffering public ; but I hope that this latest work 
may fill the position that is at the moment vacant/ and 
may supply information that is needed. My chief excuse 
for it consists in the fact that new material bearing on this, 
my special subject, is constantly being discovered, and I 
have here endeavoured — to use a familiar expression — to 
bring the science up to date. Investigations in archives 
and records quite often bring to light new facts about 
miniature painters and their doings, and as an example, 
there is information in this book concerning Nicholas 
HiUiard and the gold mines of Scotland, in which he is actu- 
ally described as Queen EHzabeth's portrait painter, that 
has only been brought before the pubhc notice in the Rhind 
lectures delivered by Mr. Warrach during the past few 
months, having hitherto been buried in the dry pages of a 
scarce reprint (issued in 1815) of a precious Elizabethan 
document. Of one miniature painter, who is here de- 
scribed, practically all the information given is new. It 
has been gleaned from his ledgers, which have lately come 
into my own possession, and I believe that the list of his 
sitters, which forms an appendix, may be found of service 
in identifying many of his miniatures, which at present are 

^ " How to Identify Protrait Miniatures " went out of print 
this year. 


unknown, or have been wrongly attributed to some other 

I have not hesitated to refer to some problems as to 
certain miniature painters, which still await solution, and 
I have given, I hope with impartiality, the arguments on 
either side, while I have not scrupled to declare to which 
I adhere. In the chapter on forgeries, I have, for the first 
time, put into cold print certain of the methods I have for 
years adopted in endeavouring to determine the authenti- 
city of the miniatures that have been submitted to me, 
and I have gone, at some length, into an account of the 
pigments used by the various artists and of the methods 
that can be adopted for their identification. It has seemed 
to me to be right that the material that after many years 
of experience I have been able to gather together for my 
own use, should be placed at the disposal of others, especi- 
ally as one is unable to hand on purely personal experience 
or insight and can only assist the collector in coming to an 
opinion for himself. 

In the Bibliography, I have adopted a somewhat different 
plan from that I have used in other books, and have given 
some information as to the importance, or contents, of the 
books in question, to guide any future purchasers. Above 
all, it has been my desire, in accordance with the wish of 
the editor of this series, to make the book one of practical 
value, to give the information in simple language, avoiding 
as far as possible, technicahties, or the jargon of a collector, 
and thus to produce a work which will be useful, I venture 
to hope, to the person commencing to collect, and will 
yet not be scorned by those who already own a collec- 
tion, and desire to know more about the artists who were 
responsible for their treasures. 

The illustrations have been selected in order to give a 
good idea of the work of the different artists. Many of 
them have not appeared hitherto in any work on miniatures, 
and I am greatly indebted to the various owTiers, whose 


names appear on the plates, for permission to make use of 
the choice examples from their collections which are here 
reproduced. Others are taken from costly and privately 
printed works, or from books that are now out of print, 
and the aim has been to present in chronological sequence 
the works of all the noted miniature painters and to show 
in most cases representative examples. 

My very hearty thanks are accorded to my friends Dr. 
Martin Onslow Forster, F.R.S., and Dr. Laing, and to my 
son Mr. Cuthbert A. Williamson for their kindness in 
reading my proofs and making many valuable suggestions 
concerning them. 

If I have succeeded in being of some service to those 
who devote their attention to this dehghtful branch of 
portraiture in the study of which I have laboured for so 
many years I shall feel amply rewarded and the purpose 
of this book will have been achieved. 


Burgh House, 
Hampstead, London, 
May, 1920. 






IN MINIATURE - . . . . 8 






VIII. RICHARD COSWAY, R.A. - - - - 103 




XII. OZIAS HUMPHRY, R.A. . . . . 147 


XV. THE END OF THE STORY - - - - 182 









XXI. FORGERIES ------ 243 



Appendix : Complete List of all the persons who sat 
for their portraits to William Wood, 1768-1809, 
extracted from his private ledgers and never 

before published ----- 275 

INDEX 295 




Frontispiece. Richard Cosway (in colour) 


The Origin of the Art and Holbein 



Holbein ------ 



Other Early Masters - . - 



Nicholas Hilliard . - - - 



Nicholas Hilliard - - _ - 



Nicholas and Lawrence Hilliard 



Isaac Oliver ----- 



Peter Oliver ----- 



John Hoskins ----- 



John Hoskins 



Samuel Cooper ----- 



Samuel Cooper ----- 



Samuel Cooper 



Samuel Cooper 



Alexander Coopek - . . - 



Nicholas Dixon 



The Interregnum ... - 



The Interregnum - - - - 






The Interregnum . . . . 



Richard Cosway . . - . 



Richard Cosway . _ . . 



Andrew and Nathaniel Plimer - 



George Engleheart - - - - 



John Smart 



John Smart - _ . . . 



OziAs Humphry ----- 



The End of the Story 



The End of the Story 



The Miniature Painters in Enamel - 



Foreign Miniature Painters 



Plumbago Drawings - - - - 



Plumbago Drawings - - - - 



Specimen Signature of Cosway - 
Specimen Signature of Humphry 
A Rare Book on Miniature Painting 

- 114 

- 154 

- 273 




IT is unnecessary, and not even desirable, in a handbook 
of this kind, which has to deal with portrait minia- 
tures, that lengthy reference should be made to the 
art of preparing illuminated manuscripts, even though the 
use of the word miniature was originally applied to the 
paintings in these MSS., and is still used more or less 
in the same connection. The student may perhaps be 
puzzled at the very outset by noting the existence of 
Bradley's " Dictionary of Miniaturists," and finding that 
none of the artists alluded to in this volume are referred 
to in that Dictionary, but he will then understand that the 
book in question has to deal with the miniaturists, painters, 
illuminators and caligraphcrs who were responsible for the 
illuminated MSS. of early days, and not with those who are 
now usually termed Painters oj portraits in miniatttre. 
The very word miniature offers the first problem for solu- 
tion. There is little doubt that it was derived from the '' 
Latin mj;n«m, vermilion, the colour used for the heading i[/ 
and initial letters of these MSS., in which small pictorial 7 
scenes were introduced. The original meaning of this was 
afterwards expressed by the term lubrication, and then the 
word miniature became applied to the illuminations in the 



MS., rather than to the decoration in red lines which 
surrounded them ; but, after a while, owing to the small 
dimensions of the work, the word became associated with 
the French word mignatnre, and so gradually was used 
with regard to paintings in little, which are with greater 
accuracy to be spoken of as " limnings." In process of 
time, the word has really lost its original meaning, and we 
now speak of a miniature bookcase, or miniature books, 
or of any object which is of small proportions, and we use 
the word miniature as an adjective to qualify it, and to 
express the sense that it is an exceedingly small example 
of its class. It is not easy to adopt a definition that will 
be simple and accurate for what we now call a miniature, 
perhaps the easiest way is to speak of a miniature as a 
portrait that can be held in one hand. It may perhaps 
be no bigger than the thumb-nail, it may perchance be as 
large as the palm of the hand, or even larger, but it must 
be a portable portrait, one that can be easily held and 
examined closely. It would be better, undoubtedly, if 
the use of the old word " limning " had survived. John 
Crowne's " Country Wit," a favourite play with Charles II. 
published in 1675, and acted with applause at the Duke's 
Theatre, in the course of a conversation between two 
persons styled " Merry " and " Ramble " gives these 
lines : — 

Merry : Cannot you limne, Sir ? 

Ramble : Limne ! What dost thou mean ? 

Merry : Why limne. Sir, draw pictures in little. 

The word su^^dved well into Stuart or even the beginning 
of Hanoverian, times. King Charles's collection was called 
" The King's collection of limnings." In an appointment to 
Queen Anne the miniature painter was styled " Limner to 
the Queen," and certain documents of the reign of George I. 
speak of limnings being executed by the King's painters. 
Pepys speaks of " paintings in little," and this is also a 


suitable phrase to apply to these small portraits, although 
perhaps an awkward one. " Limning " would be a better, 
but that also we have to trace back to the illuminated 
MSS. because the word is derived from the French word 
enliiminer and that again is derived from the Latin 
illuminare, to paint. It is really impossible to lay down a 
hard and fast Une at the present day for the use of the 
word, because we use the same word for portraits which 
differ as much as the tiny enamel by Petitot of Louis XIV. 
which can be covered by an English farthing, and the por- 
trait of Charles II. at Goodwood which measures nine 
inches by seven, or the one of the three youths at Burghley 
which is about the same size, or the circular one of Henri- 
etta Maria, in the Amsterdam Museum, which is over 
seven inches in diameter. 

Now for the origin of these miniatures. 

Portraits of hving persons appear in some of the earliest 
of the illuminated MSS. Take, for example, one by Simon 
Beninck, in a genealogical tree that showed the alUance 
between the Royal houses of Spain and Portugal, or the 
picture of Cardinal Grimani by Giulio Clovio in the cele- 
brated Grimani Breviary, or the one of Francis I. on the 
ratification of the treaty of perpetual peace with England 
dated i8th August, 1527, or those of Henry VIII. and 
Philip and Mary which adorned the Rolls of Pleas, in the 
Court of King's Bench, at Westminster and St. Alban's. 
All these are well-known examples of single portraits of 
sovereigns and notable persons, painted upon documents 
that were intended to be preserved with great care, and 
which were connected with certain special epochs in the 
history of the times. There was no idea, when these 
portraits were painted, of their being used separately, in 
frames, but they added to the authenticity and importance 
of the treaty or document in question, and were, perhaps, 
proofs, to those who saw the document, that it had been 
agreed to, by the sovereign whose portrait adorned it. 


That those early portraits were hkcnesses of the sovereigns 
ill question is quite another matter. They are not works 
of very high merit, and in all probabihty they did not bear 
a very close resemblance to the persons they were intended 
to depict, but at the same time, there w^as an attempt at 
genuine portraiture, and one feels, in looking, for example, 
at the Grimani Breviary, that the representation of the 
Cardinal does depict a Venetian ecclesiastic of the day, 
and even the type of man we can imagine Grimani to have 
been. Again, in the Roll of Pleas at Westminster for 1556 
there was a certain definite attempt at Royal portraiture, 
the solemn face of Queen Mary and the supercilious aspect 
of Philip were both reahsed by the artist. The portrait 
of Francis on the first page of the treaty to which the 
magnificent golden " buUa " was attached is clearly that 
of a Frenchman, and of one who ruled in his own country, 
with much the facial characteristics that might be expected 
of Francis 1. Here are evident attempts at psychology. 
Gradually, however, more effort was made to constitute 
these limnings in colour, on documents or MSS., more akin 
to real portraits, and from the time of Henry VIII. the 
improvement slowly developed. There is a diploma of 
Charles II. creating his natural son James to be Duke of 
Monmouth, \\'ith remainder to the Earldom of Buccleuch, 
dated April 20th, 1663, and this bears upon it quite a fine 
portrait of the King. The deed was dated at Whitehall, 
and therefore, though it bears the great seal of Scotland, 
the portrait was probably the work of some English artist, 
and, as it very much resembles a painting by Cooper, it 
may have been painted bj' some court limner, after a 
miniature by that artist. From that time we have an 
almost complete series of portraits of the monarchs of 
England on letters patent, or on charters. We cannot 
say who was the artist responsible for any of them, save 
perhaps in one instance, in which a drawing of Charles II. 
by David Loggan so closely resembles the head of that 


monarch on the letters patent of that day that it seems 
almost certain Loggan must have been responsible for the 
original drawing from which perhaps other persons made 
copies for documents and deeds. The same thing occurred 
in other parts of Europe. There are some interesting 
sixteenth-century letters of instruction to persons who 
held high positions under the State of Venice. They took 
the form of volumes, beautifully and elaborately bound, 
and on the first page of each was usually a representation 
of the envoy to whom the document was addressed. 
His portrait was associated with a representation of his 
patron saint, and enclosed in an elaborate decorative 
border, in which appeared the arms of the Doge of Venice 
and s5nnbolical figures, representative of the republic of 
Venice, and the provinces which gave allegiance to it. 
Some of the earliest of these letters of instruction were 
merely conventional and formal portraiture, but gradually 
there was a clear attempt to represent the man as he was, 
and some of them, specially two, dated 1545 and 1550 
appointing governors to Cattaro and Bassano, were 
attempts to represent the man himself, and were evidently 
painted from life. In these, and in some similar documents 
of Enghsh origin and of about the same period, we have 
the earliest attempts at portraiture within a very small 
compass, such as we now speak of as a miniature, and from 
this point down to the time when there were actual por- 
traits painted in England on documents and when these 
portraits were cut out and framed is not a long step, and 
one which will be set out in detail in the next chapter. 



I HAVE already alluded to the probable evolution of 
the portrait miniature from the small portraits 
which appeared in early manuscripts, and we have 
now to consider the actual application of this theory. 

That there were portraits in these manuscripts is known 
to every collector, and it is easy to verify the statement 
by examining the English MS. of the fifteenth century De 
Regimine Principis in the British Museum,^ which contains 
the well-known portrait of Geoffrey Chaucer the poet 
(1370-1450?), in Hoccleve's manuscript. 

Again, the famous Sherborne Manuscript, perhaps the 
finest and most precious in England, which is preserved in 
the Library at Aln\\ick Castle, contains in several places 
the portrait of the illuminator who carried out the work, 
in about 1400, for the Abbot of Sherborne, John Siferwas, 
a Dominican friar belonging to an old English family. 
The same wonderful Manuscript contains also the portrait 
of the scribe who wrote it, one John Whas, a monk. The 
portrait of Siferwas appears also in another famous manu- 
script, the odd pages of the Salisbury Lectionarium in the 
British Museum, which possesses for its frontispiece a 
portrait of John, Lord Lovell of Tichmersh, who is shown 
receiving the book from Siferwas w-ho had prepared it. 
Yet other portraits can be seen at the British Museum, 
those of Occleve ^ already mentioned in the act of 

1 Harleian MSS. 4866, f. 88. 2 Royal MS. 17, D. VI. 


presenting his book to Henry V., and of John Lyd- 
gate/ the poet (i370?-i45i?) on a similar occasion to 
Henry VI. 

In the famous manuscript of Caesar's " De Bello GaUico " 
prepared for Francis I. there appeared several portraits 
attributed by M. Dimier to Jean Clouet (Janet) and of 
circular form, depicting the companions of the King. In 
one of the three ^ volumes in which this great treasure is 
contained, there is a portrait of the King himself, and such 
circular miniatures would readily lend themselves to 
framing if once removed from the manuscript. It seems 
to be possible that one such portrait was actually so treated, 
because in the J. Pierpont Morgan collection is a portrait 
of Charles Cosse, Marechal de Brissac, which is identical 
in technique, colouring and size with the portraits of the 
Preux de Marignan in the MS. of the Gallic Wars and is 
attributed by M. Dimier to the same artist. This is 
painted on a piece of vellum, and has an irregular edge just 
as it would have had if it had been cut out. No manuscript 
from which such a portrait is missing has at present been 
identified, but there is little doubt that it did once adorn 
such a manuscript whence it was cut out in order that it 
might be framed, and used as a portrait to be carried in 
the hand or exhibited on the person. It is possible that 
other famous miniatures of an early period both in England 
and France may have come from similar sources, but 
whether this is so or not, we probably possess in the Pier- 
pont Morgan portrait ^ one definite example of the origin 
of the framed portrait miniature. 

The idea once started became popular amongst the great 
people of the day, and it was early in the sixteenth century 

1 Harleian MSS. 1766, f. 5. 

* The three vols, are separated, one is in the Bibliotheque Nation- 
ale, another at Chantilly, and a third in the British Museum (Harl. 
MSS. 6205). All three have been reproduced in exquisite fashion in 
facsimile, see B.M. K.T.C. 28a3. 

' See my Catalogue of the Morgan collection, 1907, III., page i. 


Plate I . 


Leonard Bur. By Holbein. 

In the Collection of Mrs. Sotheby. 

Francis I, from the triplicate of the ratification of the treaty |of 
perpetual peace dated i8 August, 1527. Artist unknown. 
In the Public Record Office. 

Queen Catherine Howard. By Holbein. 

In the Collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, 

Hans Holbein in his 45th year, dated 1543. By himself. 

In the Collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, 

Charles de Cosse, Marechal de Brissac {ob. 1621). By Jean 
In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 


that the art began to come into fashion. In Mr. Salting's 
bequest to the nation, now exhibited at the Victoria and 
Albert Museum, can be seen two dehghtful portraits of 
ntt]e girls ^ painted in the year 1590, when they were at 
the ages of five and four respectively. One holds a red 
carnation, the other an apple, and they were probably the 
work of Lavina Teerlinck, the daughter of Simon Binninc 
of Bruges, who certainly painted in England ^ ; in fact at 
one time there was preserved with them, by their then 
owner, Mr. Hawkins, a slip of parchment, which I myself 
saw and read, on which was inscribed a statement that 
the two portraits were " fynely " painted " by La\dna 
Teerlinck in 1590 at Greenwich." In some unaccountable 
and most unfortunate manner this precious riband of 
yellowish parchment disappeared, when the Hawkins 
collection was transferred to Christie's, and has never 
since been seen. These portraits are in contemporary, 
turned ivory cases, and the parchment was, when I saw it, 
tied on to one of them. There were other fifteenth-century 
painters to whom miniatures are attributed, as for example 
Simon Binninc already mentioned, and Luke and Susanna 
Hornebolt, but to all intents and purposes the art com- 
mences in England with the work of Hans Holbein (1497- 
1543) who seems to have paid his first visit to this country 
in 1526, and his second in 1531. 

When he actually commenced to paint portrait minia- 
tures it is impossible to say, inasmuch as we have so few 
dated portraits to guide us, but it is probable that the 
earliest that has survived is the portrait of Henry VIII. 's 

* See my Catalogue of the Morgan collection of Miniatures, 1906, 
I., 20. 

* There is an interesting reference to her being at the English 
Court in 1546 : — Mrs. Levyna Terling, paintrix, to have a fee of 
£^0 a year from the Annunciation of Our Lady last past, during your 
Majesty's pleasure. Preferred by my Lady Harbert. It is to be 
found in the Letters and Papers of Henry VIII-, 1546, Part IL, No. 
475, Grant loi. 


third wife, Jane Seymour, which originally belonged to 
the Seymour family, and is said to have passed through the 
possession of the Duke of Buckingham, Horace Walpole 
(it is beheved), Mr. Sackville Bale, and Dr. Propert, and 
which now belongs to Mr. Vernon Watney. Then would 
follow the portrait of Henry VI H.^ himself, in the Morgan 
collection, which, tradition states, was presented by the 
King to Anne of Cleves, and the superb portrait of that 
Queen which forms part of the Salting bequest, and which 
wasprobably painted in July, 1539, at Duren, in Cleves, by 
order of the King. Another portrait of Jane Seymour 
belongs to Mr. H. Dent-Brocklehurst, and a third to the 
Duke of Buccleuch, while portraits of two other wives of 
Henry VIII. are known, if one in the Dent-Brocklehurst 
collection is correctly called Queen Catherine Parr, and if, 
as is practically certain, the miniature in the Royal collec- 
tion and the similar one belonging to the Duke of Buccleuch 
represent Queen Catherine Howard. Holbein never 
painted anything more lovely, however, than the portrait 
of Mrs. Pemberton,^ at the age of twenty-three, which is 
now the chief treasure in the J. Pierpont Morgan collection. 
It is a work of exquisite beauty and great refinement, and 
has been identified from the coat-of-arms painted on the 
back. It also came from the C. H. T. Hawkins collection. 
Holbein's own portrait is in the Wallace col]ection,''and a 
very similar portrait is in the collection of the Duke of 
Buccleuch. Both are dated 1543 when the artist was in 
his forty-fifth year. An earlier, and even finer work is 
in the Salting collection, and was painted in 1532, when, 
as the artist himself declares, he was thirtj'-five years old. 
Besides those, there are in existence portraits by him of 
many other persons notable in the court of the Tudor 
King, as for example Catherine Willoughby, Duchess of 
Suffolk (collection of the Earl of Ancaster), Queen Katherine 

* Morgan catalogue, 1906, I. p. 4, No. 2. 

* Morgan catalogue, 1906, I. p. 8, No. 4. 


of Aragon (collection of the late Mr. Joseph), Chas. Brandon, 
Duke of Suffolk, Henry Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, Lady 
Audley, and Queen Catherine Howard (collection of H.M. 
the King), and several belonging to the Duke of Buccleuch 
and Queensberry. 

For one of the most charming, however, we must go 
abroad, as the Queen of Holland's collection contains a 
famous portrait of a young man, said to be the son of a 
merchant of the Steel Yard, a friend of Sir Thomas More, 
and tradition gives it that More introduced the painter 
to his companion, who forthwith entmsted him with this 
commission, a portrait of the boj^ to send to his mother, 
in Holland . Nobly has Holbein carried out the commission . 
The portrait is quite simple, ^^ithout any accessories, just 
that of a quiet, thoughtful, reflective youth, in a dark 
claret coloured costume, with a tiny white lace collar just 
visible, close up to the neck. As a piece of exquisite por- 
traiture it can hardly be surpassed. Another, in the same 
collection, represents, I think, Reskymeer, a Cornish gentle- 
man, whose full-length portrait by the same artist is to 
be seen at Hampton Court. 

The collector is not very likely to come across a miniature 
by Holbein, although of course such a delightful circum- 
stance might occur, and, in fact, only in May, 1918, a por- 
trait of undoubted authenticity representing Lady Mary 
Howard came up for sale, did not fetch its true value and 
returned to the collection of Sir Henry Jerningham, where 
it still is. In this case, the story of the history of the 
miniature was complete, but, unluckily, the whole of the 
work now seen was not that of Holbein, as some other 
artist, perhaps in Stuart times, or in those of Queen Anne, 
had attempted to repair some damage and had not been 
wholly successful. As regards the greater part of the 
portrait, however, it was certainly the work of the Swabian 
master himself, and so rare are miniatures by Holbein 
that any collector might well be proud to possess this 


Plate II. 

1. George Nevill, Baron Abergavenny, K.G. 

In the Collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, 

2. Charles Brandon, son of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk {ob. 

1551). Oneof two portraits of brothers. Inscribed ann 154 1 


In the Collection of H.M. the King. 

3. Cromwell, Earl of Essex. 

In the Collection of Mrs. Sotheby. 

4. A Young Man, name unknown, the son, it is said, of a merchant 

of the Steelyard. 

In the Collection of the Queen of Holland. 



interesting portrait and to chronicle in his catalogue the 
long and curious history that belongs to it, and which 
proved whom it represents.^ 

In case a similar chance befalls the collector, it will be 
well to set down, for his guidance, certain rules. Holbein's 
miniatures are circular — never true circles, never trimmed 
quite accurately, but irregular in shape and often with 
jagged edges. They are on a blue ground, of a quite 
clear, pure ultramarine blue, distinctive and easy of 
identification. They are often inscribed, and sometimes 
signed with initials, and the lettering is in gold or black and 
in square clear characters. The paint is put on very 
lightly, and is never thick or lumpy, the modelling is subtle, 
so subtle that it is difficult to understand how, with a very 
slight amount of colour, and such very tender shades, so 
much modelling could be obtained ; and the shadows are 
transparent and white, never very deep or dark. Exquisite 
is the word to apply to the technique, so dainty is it and so 
refined. Let it be borne in mind that Holbein died in 
1543 and not in 1554, as was for a long time believed, and 
then it will be clear that he cannot have painted Edward 
VI. as a young man, inasmuch as that King was born in 
1538, five years only before Holbein died. This is an 
important fact, as there are several portraits of Edward 
VI. which bear Holbein's name, but which have no connec- 
tion with him. Again, be it remembered that genuine 
miniatures by Holbein are very rarely to be seen, but that 
so great is the eminence of his name that many portraits 
are attributed to him, therefore the collector must be 
exceedingly cautious when any so-called come under his 

The genuine miniatures are either painted on the very 
thinnest vellum, mounted on a placing card, or else direct 
on to the card itself, and never on any other material. 

^ It has just lately passed into the hands of a notable collector 
in Sweden. 


Tlie hair in the portrait should be examined first, as Holbein 
painted the hair with extreme delicacy and the finest of 
outline. Next, look for ornaments, because they are 
always executed with scrupulous accuracy, and extremely 
sharp definite outline, but they never occupy any but 
quite a subordinate position in the work. Holbein rivets 
attention on the face, everything else is subservient to it, 
and the face is always full of character, invariably at 
rest, and generally painted with a serious and somewhat 
pathetic look. 

There is no such thing as a vivacious or smiling Holbein 
portrait, the expression is calm, serious, thoughtful, but 
not specially alert. 

There are probably Holbeins yet to be discovered in 
country houses, for the eighteen or so that can be readily 
mentioned are not likely to be constituted his entire output, 
and there is therefore the chance for a collector to discover 
one hitherto unknown. Holbein does not appear to have 
had any pupils or to have founded any school. The men 
who followed him were very different in their technique, 
but he probably had some assistants in his studio, and 
there are several miniatures, notably, e.g., the portraits of 
Nicholas Kratzer and Arnold Franz and Henry, Lord 
Stafford in the J. P. Morgan collection which belong 
undoubtedly to Holbein's period and partake very largely 
of his method and style and which yet differ from his work. 
They may quite weU bear his name, yet we may be sure that 
the hand that was responsible for Mrs. Pemberton, for the 
Queen of Holland's " boy," and for Henry VIII. and Anne 
of Cleves, to mention no others, could not have completed 
these portraits. There is evidence, to the eye of the 
expert, in aU of them, of a connection, intimate and real, 
with the work of Holbein, but there is also evidence of the 
work of another hand, and I believe that these and other 
miniatures of the same character were produced in the 
master's studio, under his supervision, and perhaps sketched 



in by him, but that some unknown artist — about whom we 
would gladly have some information — was responsible for 
very much in them. Of the other artists of the period, 
Johannes Corvus — the Hornebolts, Jean Clouet, Gerlack 
Fliccius, Gillam Streetes, John Shute, John Bettes, and 
Francis Segar, I need say but little here. About all these 
men our information is exceedingly scanty, and is not very 
likely to increase, except quite b}^ accident and research 
amongst contemporary documents, so that the collector 
may well leave these artists alone and devote his attention 
to works that are more likely to come before him. 

It should, however, just be mentioned that the period 
boasted also of other artists who did not sign their works 
and who therefore cannot be identified, for there are 
anonymous portraits, sometimes dated, in all the great 
collections, notably in that of the Duke of Buccleuch, 
differing in technique and colouring from the works of any 
known men, and although, sometimes, the person depicted 
can be identified, the artist responsible for the portrait 
remains in total obscurity. 


Plate III. 

1 . Lady Mary Sydney, painted on a playing card. Artist un- 

known. Perhaps by Nicholas Lockey. 

In the Collection of the Viscount Harcourt. 

2. Henry VIII in his 35th year. By an unknown artist. 

In the Collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, 

3. A Child, name unknown. Painted at Greenwich in 1590, by 

Lavina TeerUnc. 

In the Salting Collection. 

4. Called a portrait of Queen Elizabeth and "the only portrait 

of her in profile." Artist unknown. Perhaps by John 
Bossam, or by Francis or William Segar. 
In the Collection of the Viscount Harcourt. 

5. Edward VI. Signed I.S. Perhaps by GwilUm Streetes. 

In the Collection of the Earl Beauchamp, K.G. 

PLATK 1 1 1 



IT is difficult to unravel the complex story of early 
English portraiture prior to the times of Elizabeth : 
and especially puzzling to determine the names of 
the Enghsh portrait painters of Tudor times and to attri- 
bute to each his on^ti proper work. 

As has been pointed out already, the man who stands 
pre-eminent amongst them was not an Englishman, but 
a Swabian. Although Holbein settled down and died in 
this country and thus may be regarded, to all intents and 
purposes, as an Englishman in the latter half of his life, 
he does not give us the same interest in English art as if 
he had been bom and bred in this country. Of the others 
whose names have been handed dow'n to us in contemporary 
literature, many were foreigners who settled here, and 
carried out commissions, none of them, with the possible 
exceptions of Bettes and Shute, can be claimed for England 
— but when we leave the reign of Henry VHI. and enter 
upon that of his great daughter Elizabeth, our feet are 
planted on firmer ground. The art of which I speak was 
essentially an English one, and Englishmen were those 
who excelled in it, and made its repute a great one. This 
is not to say that there were no great exponents of it 
elsewhere, because Petitot and Prieur, Dumont and Isabej^ 
Guerin and Augustin, are important names in France, Hall 
occupies an honoured place in Sweden, and is accompanied 



by Gillberg and Sparrgien, Fiiger in Austria is the great 
name, with Chodowiecki, Dinglinger, and Tliienpondt in 
Germany, Lundens in Holland, Van Blarenberghe in 
Flanders and Quaglia in Spain. Taking it all in all, how- 
ever, and remembering that there were scores of minor 
miniature painters on the continent, and a few great ones 
in every country, it is in England that we can boast of the 
greatest men, and here, alone, is there a long line of minia- 
ture painters with great names in every epoch, from Tudor 
times down to the nineteenth centur^^ 

Hence there is justification for a pride in the English 
characteristics of the art. When Nicholas Hilliard, whom 
we claim as the first Englishman who was really proficient 
in miniature painting, was bom, it would seem easy to say 
as upon his owti portraits at Wei beck Abbey and in the 
Buccleuch collection he gives us the required information. 
The problem is, however, not such a simple one after all. 
On one portrait at Welbeck which is dated 1550^ and on a 
similar one in the Buccleuch^ collection he describes him- 
self as aged thirteen years, and on another in the Buccleuch 
collection ^ dated 1574 he has inscribed Aetatis suae 37, 
giving us in each instance his birth date as 1537 or 1538. 
That being so it would appear clear that there must be 
some error on a self-portrait of the artist in the Salting 
collection which reads 1577 Aetatis suae 30, and which, 
as Mr. Goulding in the Welbeck catalogue has pointed out, 
would give 1547 or 1548 as his birth date and would make 
him only twelve or thirteen when he painted a portrait of 
Edward Se3'mour, Duke of Somerset, which is dated 1560.* 
In \aew of the fact, however, that, as Mr. Kennedy in his 
work on that collection points out, this portrait differs in 
many respects from the usual work of Hilliard and that the 

^ No. 12 in the Welbeck catalogue. 

' No. A.A.15 in catalogue. 

3 No. B.19. 

* Buccleuch collection, A.18. 


features are not quite the same as those in the generally 
accepted portraits of the Protector, it may be doubted 
whether Hilliard painted it, although its ascription to him 
"is of a considerable age " and so that difficult}^ would 
disappear ; but the puzzle will still remain because the 
figures of the date on the Salting portrait are " clear and 
untouched " and a mistake of ten years has occurred 
somewhere ! Moreover, it has also been noted, that, if 
Hilliard was bom in 1537, he was sixty-eight when he 
painted a portrait said to be that of Lord Hunsdon which 
is dated 1605,^ but here again, it may be mentioned that 
Simon Binninc painted his own portrait when he was 
seventy-five and Petitot was in full working power at 
eighty. Moreover, there is just a possibility that the 
Hunsdon (?) portrait was the work of Lawrence Hilliard 
and not that of his father. 

Even so the puzzle is not at an end, but is even increased, 
when we come to examine the portraits that Hilliard 
painted of his father, the chief of which is inscribed " Ricar- 
dus Hilliard Quondam Vice comes Civitatis Et Comitatus 
Exoniae 1560 "^ and thecompanion one "Aetatis suae 58. 
Anno Dom 1577."^ 

This inscription would imply that Richard HiUiard was 
bom in 1519, and if that date is correct, it is rather diffi- 
cult to understand how Nicholas could have been bom in 
1537, when his father was only eighteen, although, as has 
been pointed out, marriages took place at a ver}^ early age 
in those days. We can be perfectly certain, however, 
that Nicholas could not have painted his o\vn portrait 
when he was three years old, and by that argument we are 
brought back again to the date 1537. In either case, we 
arrive at his birth date within ten years, and of his death 
we have definite evidence, as it is recorded in the register 

^ Buccleuch collection, A. A. 5. 

' Salting collection. 

* Buccleuch collection, D.R.A.i. 


Plate IV. 


{ob. 1619). 

I. Alicia Brandon (Mrs. Hilliard) in her 22nd year. Dated 1578, 

2, 3. John Croker and his wife. 

At one time in the possession of Mr. E. M. Hodgkins. 

4. Nicholas Hilliard in his 37th year. Dated 1574. 

Nos. I and 4 in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and 
Queensberry, K.T. 

I'LAI I. I\' 


of St. Martin 's-in-the-Fields, under date January 7th, 

He was an artist of great repute in his day, as witness the 
allusion to him by Dr. Donne in The Storm written in 
1597, where he says — 

" . . . a hand or eye 
By Hilliard drawn is worth a History 
By a worse painter made. . . . " 

His work is very characteristic in its exquisite and deUcate 
elaboration of all the accessories of the portrait such as 
draperies, embroideries and lace, while jewels are so repre- 
sented as to give them almost the distinction and quality 
of actual precious stones. His faces are flat, lacking in 
vitality and tone, and distinguished by a weakness almost 
effeminate, in modelling. It was, however, the fashion to 
follow the Queen in her ideas of portraiture, and as she 
objected to shadows, as unbecoming, so the portraits of 
other sitters were carried out on the same lines, and a 
curious absence of expression was the result. The excel- 
lence of Hilliard's craftsmanship cannot be gainsaid, and 
his skill in elaboration with its marvellous precise lines and 
minute handling give to his portraits a special fascination 
and charm. Moreover, his miniatures are very decorative 
works and the inscriptions they bear only serve to add 
to this quality ; the ornate shape of the letters, the 
flourishes and rubrications which accompany them and 
the gleam of the gold in which they are traced, all increasing 
the beauty of the finished portrait. They were, it is clear, 
painted, as to many of them, in the open air, in bright 
daylight, and hence they lack atmosphere and its conse- 
quent mystery. Everything is set out in an equal light, 
simple and direct, and completed with a precision akin to 
that of a worker in the precious metals or in gems or stones. 
The illustrations I give well exemplify these special char- 
acteristics of this early painter. 


HiUiard was, moreover, as the miniatures prepare us to 
believe, much more than a portrait painter. He describes 
himself , on one of his own miniatures,^ as " Aurifaber, 
Sculptor et coelebris Illuminator " to Queen Elizabeth, 
and we have evidence bearing out this statement. He 
both designed and engraved the second Great Seal of 
Elizabeth, the order for which was given July 15th, 1584, and 
the payment made by the lease of some lands to him in 
1587. He was responsible also, it would appear likely, for 
an Irish seal, the drawing for which is in the British Museum, 
and there is some evidence that he may have been also 
responsible for executing certain jewels and medals. 

Furthermore, it has been suggested that Hilliard prac- 
tised the art of cutting precious stones. He certainly had 
a knowledge of such work, and refers to it in the treatise 
he wrote on miniature painting to which I aUude later on. 

Inasmuch as his mother was Lawrence, daughter of 
John Wall, a goldsmith of London, it is possible that he 
was trained in the mysteries of the goldsmith's craft by his 
grandfather, as Sir Richard Holmes suggests. ^ 

In a miniature of Queen Elizabeth attributed to Hilliard 
and preserved at Welbeck Abbey, there is an actual diamond 
inserted in the orb which the Queen holds in her hand. 

There are but few allusions to him in the State Papers 
of the day, but Dr. Philip Norman, in an article he wrote 
for the Walpole Society,^ quotes the half-a-dozen leading 
facts that are known. His appointment as Limner to 
Queen Elizabeth was continued by her successor, and in 
1617 James I. granted him by charter^ special privileges 
in respect to his " Extraordinarie Arte and Skille in Draw- 
inge Gravinge and Imprinting of Pictures and Representa- 
tion of US and Others." This license was granted for 

^ Collection of Mr. L. Currie at Minley Manor. 

* See Burlington Magazine, Jan., 1906, p. 229. 
3 See Vol. I., 1912, pp. 1-54. 

* Rymer's " Fcedera," xvii. 15. 


twelve years, and in it he is termed " our beloved servant 
Nicholas Hilliard, Gentleman, our principal Drawer for the 
small portraits and Imbosser of our Medallies of Gold." 
In 1610 he is also referred to as the Painter to the King, 
and it is then stated that he had suffered from serious 
iUness, but " resolved before he died to recommend the suit 
of William Labourer, Goldsmith, who has discovered a new 
mode of repairing highways at half the usual cost."^ 

There is also some evidence that at one time he went to 
France and worked at the French Court, while there 
painting several interesting portraits of notable French 
ladies. There was unquestionably an English painter who 
was employed at that time by the Due d'Alengon, and 
who is called in his accounts " Nicholas Belliart," pro- 
bably a mispronunciation of Hilliard. I have given some 
information on this question in the Pierpont Morgan 

Perhaps even more interesting than Hilliard 's pictorial 
art was the fact that he was an author, and that to his hand 
we owe a treatise on the art of miniature painting, the 
first, and in some ways the most important, that was ever 
written. It was inspired by Richard Haydocke, the trans- 
lator of Lomazzo, and, although we have no manuscript 
of it in Hilliard 's own handwriting, and only one which was 
prepared by a somewhat careless scribe in 1624, and was 
assigned to HiUiard by an inscription upon it in the eight- 
eenth century by the engraver and antiquary, George 
Vertue ; there is yet very complete evidence that it was the 
work of Hilliard himself. All this evidence is well set out 
by Dr. Philip Norman in the article in the M'alpole volume 
already alluded to, and moreover. Dr. Norman prints the 
treatise in full and gives a considerable amount of valuable 
information concerning its history. Haydocke, in his 

^ State Papers, Dom. Series, 1603-1610, liii. 595. 
* See Vol. I., 1906, pp. 24-26. 


tract containing " The Artes of Curious Paintinge, Carvinge 
and Buildinge," compared Hilliard as a painter with 
Raphael, and then proceeded thus : " For (to speake a truth) 
his perfection in ingenious illuminating or limning, the 
perfection of painting, is (if I can judge) so extraordinarie, 
that when I devised with my selfe the best argument to 
set it forth, I found none better than to perswade him to 
doe it himselfe to the view of all men by his pen ; as hee 
had before unto very many, by his learned pencell, which 
in the end he assented unto, and by mee promiseth you a 
treatise of his o\^Tle practice that way with all convenient 

The MS. which Vertue has styled " A treatise concerning 
the Arte of Limning, writ by N. Hilliard," fills some thirty- 
two pages out of a MS. of thirty-six pages, which is pre- 
served in the library at Edinburgh University. It is full 
of information as to how to attain skill in the art of miniature 
painting, and it describes an interview which Hilliard had 
with Queen Elizabeth, when they discussed the kind of 
light most suitable for miniature portraits, and the rule was 
laid down that shadow was only useful for concealing 
deficiencies in the sitter. That having been accepted, it 
will readily be understood that the Queen, proud of her 
beauty, and beheving that in her countenance there were 
no deficiencies to be concealed, chose, said Hilliard, to sit 
for her portrait " in the open ally of a goodly garden, 
where no tree was neere nor anye shadowe at all." 

Hilliard also gives us, in the same MS., the receipts for 
the preparation of various colours, a hst of the pigments 
which he used, and in some instances, the price which he 
paid for them. 

There is another treatise on " The Art of Limning " 
which has been attributed to HiUiard, but \\ith insufficient 
evidence, and there is little doubt that this was written by 
Edward Norgate. It has recently been printed in fviU, 
edited from the original MS. and collated with other MSS. 


by Mr. Martin Hardie,^ who has added to the treatise an 
introduction of great value, in which he has carefully 
arranged the facts concerning that and other similar MSS., 
and has given an excellent analysis of the Norgate treatise. 
This is also fully referred to in Dr. Norman's article already 

As regards Hilliard's domestic life, it seems clear that he 
married twice, but of his second wife, who probably pre- 
deceased him, we know nothing. His first wife \\as one 
Alicia Brandon, daughter of John Brandon, Chamberlain 
of the Cit3' of London, a good-looking woman, whose por- 
trait he painted in her twenty-second year, inscribing it 
with a statement as to who she was, and with his own 
signature in monogram, as well as the date and age of the 
sitter. This very important miniature,^ dated 1578, is con- 
tained in the Duke of Buccleuch's collection, and it also 
bears representations of the arms of Brandon and Hilliard, 
the former on the spectator's right, the latter on the left. 
The portrait of Hilliard's father, as we have seen, was also 
fully attested by a similar inscription, and the original 
silver-gilt frame in which that miniature was contained, 
and upon which the inscription appears, is still in existence 
at Penshurst, and is the property of Lord De L'Isle. The 
miniature itself passed from the Rich family into the hands 
of Mrs. Claverton, whose niece, Mrs. Thomas Liddell, was 
its next possessor, and she in turn gave it to her niece 
Mrs. Sartoris, by whom it was sold at Christie's to Mr. 
Salting, and it now forms part of the Salting bequest to the 
Victoria and Albert Museum. A very similar portrait of 
Richard Hilliard belonged at one time to Walpole, and was 
sold at the Strawberry Hill sale. It is now in the collection 
of the Duke of Buccleuch.^ This, however, is oval, and the 

* " Miniatura, or the Art of Limning," 1919. 

* Buccleuch collection, B.5. 
3 Ibidem, D.R.A.i. 


lettering and figures are differently arranged to the one in 
the National collection. 

The contents of Milliard's will are known : there are 
legacies to the poor, to his two sisters, and to his servant, 
and the residue of his estate was left to his only son 

Commencing with the self-portrait of Hilliard in the 
W'elbeck collection dated 1550 ^ and the Buccleuch one 
of 1560 there are dated miniatures by Hilliard in various 
collections from 1571 down to 1612, a period of forty-two 
3^ears with the exceptions of the years 1576, 1580, 1582- 
3-4, 1587, 1592, 1596-7-8, 1600, 1602, 1604, 1606 and 
161 1, so that in that long period only fifteen years are 
definitely unrepresented, and during those, we may be 
pretty sure that Hilliard was at work, although no dated 
portraits for those fifteen years can now be traced. It 
seems also to be probable, as we have already stated, tha 
he was responsible for several jewels and medals in gold.^ 

To the latter there is definite allusion in State Papers and 
Warrants of appointments,^ although no one medal can be 
definitely attributed to him, but Miss Helen Farquhar, 
who has devoted close attention to HiDiard's work and to 
whom I am greatly indebted for information, has ably set 
forth arguments in favour of Hilliard being responsible 
for a medal to commemorate the " Peace with Spain," 
which Pinkerton without any explanation had stated was 
supposed to be done by Hilliard, and also for the famous 
Armada jewel now in the possession of Mr. J. Pierpont 
Morgan. Her article in the Numismatic Chronicle concern- 
ing " Nicholas Hilliard Embosser of Medals in Geld " 
contains all the information that can be gathered up as to 
this branch of his art ; and her arguments, although perhaps 

^ See Welbeck catalogue, pp. 33 and 34. 

^ " Twelve Medals in Gold." See Privy Seal Book, iii. 62, in the 

' See Rymer's " Fcedera," xvii. 15. 


not conclusive, go a long way towards proving the conten- 
tion she has so ably set forth. 

Some interesting information, embracing several new 
facts concerning Nicholas Hilliard, has recently come to 
light, owing to the investigations of Mr. John Warrack, of 
Edinburgh, in connection with his course of Rhind lectures 
(1919) on Furnishing and Domestic Life in Early Scotland, 
and he has very kindly permitted me to make use of his 

In a work written by one Steven Atkinson in 16 19 
(actually rather earlier), entitled " The Disco verie and 
Historic of the Gold Mynes in Scotland," it is recorded that 
Queen Elizabeth had a very high opinion of the gold mines 
of Scotland, and was ready to make some arrangements for 
working them, provided that she could have an advantage 
herself therefrom. The entry goes on to say that one 
Cornelius de Vosse, " a most cunninge pictur-maker, and 
excellent in arte for trialls of meneralls and menerall 
stones, sometime dwelling in London, a young man well 
acquainted with Mr. Nicholas Hilliard, then principal 
drawer of smaU pictures to the late Queen Elizabeth, 
procured the same Nicholas Hilliard to adventure with 
him into Scotland, and to send his servant and freind as 
an agent thither, by name Arthur Van Brounckhurst, for 
at that time there was a great report and fame that went 
of the naturall gold gotten within the kingdom of Scotland." 
The record then goes on to state that Hilliard procured a 
patent which was granted to De Vosse that they might 
seek gold " without molestation," and then Hilliard and De 
Vosse together made an " assignment " to Arthur Van 
Brounckhurst, and he "sett workmen to worke." The 
patent appears to have had a special provision, by which 
Van Brounckhurst was admitted to bring to England a 
great quantity of gold unrefined, and test it in this country. 
The workmen proceeded to search several moors, and found, 
it is said, "gold in sondry places," but the record states, 


Plate V. 

(ob. 1619). 

1. The Due d'Alen^on. 

(See below). 

2. Queen Elizabeth. 

Collection of Mrs. Sotheby. 

3. Queen Elizabeth. This portrait and the one of the Due d'Alen- 

9on, both painted in about 1570, appear at the beginning 
and end of Queen Elizabeth's Prayer Book, whieh belonged to 
James II., and was given by him to the Duke of Berwick, 
from whom it passed to Horace Walpole and thence to the 
Duchess of Portland. At her sale in 1786 it was bought by 
Queen Charlotte, from whom it came to the Duchess of Leeds, 
and thence in 1884 to Mr. WTiitehead. 
It is now the property of the Crown. 

PI,. Ml-: V 


" he was forced to leave it all att the Mint House in Scot- 
land, by speciall command from his Majesty, being then in 
minority." Van Brounckliurst was to have had correct 
valuations made of the gold discovered, and he went into 
Scotland prepared with what is called " a store of gold and 
silver " to pay for it. The difficulty, however, of having to 
leave it in Scotland was a very serious one, and apparently 
Van Brounckliurst then applied to the Earl of Morton, who 
was Regent, but he would not give way, although Van 
Brounckhurst was a suitor for four months, and, says the 
record, " did not prevail, and so at last he was forced to 
become one of his Majesties sworne servants at ordinary in 
Scotland, to draw all the small and great pictures for his 
Majesty." " By this means, Mr. Hilliard and Cornelius de 
Vosse lost all their chardges, and never since got any 
recompense, to Mr. Hilliard's great hindrance, as he saith," 
concludes the document, " who yet liveth and confirmeth 
the same." Mr. Warrack has discovered that Cornelius 
de Vosse and three other Germans had a loan of £500 from 
Lord Morton on February 7th, 1574-5, which had not 
been repaid, and that it w'as transferred to Esme, Earl 
of Lennox, as executor, and was to be repaid by August 
1st, 1581. He suggests that perhaps the reason why 
De Vosse did not get his patent was because this loan was 
outstanding, and was to be repaid from the gold enterprise. 
Apparently, the patent was prepared, because there is a 
reference in the Pri\^ Council records to it, under date 
March 4th, 1567, but it is expressly stated that it was not 
signed by Lord Morton. 

The reference to Van Brounckhurst 's becoming one of 
his Majesty's servants, and painting the small and great 
pictures for King James, opens up a very interesting 
question, because I am not aware of any series of paintings 
attributed to this particular artist. It has been suggested 
by a writer ^ who annotated this history of the gold mines 
^ Gilbert Laing Measen, 1825. 


that it was possible that a long series of Scottish kings 
which at one time hung in the gallery at Holyrood or a 
somewhat similar series that was at one time in Newbattle 
Abbey, may have been the work of Van Brounckhurst ; 
but this can hardly be possible, because it is known that De 
Wet painted the Holyrood pictures in the time of Charles I. 
and perhaps the other series also. That Van Brounckhurst 
did paint pictures in Scotland is clear from a precept of 
September 9th, 1580, signed by James VI., in which, 
however, he is referred to as " Arnold " Brounckhurst, 
instead of "Arthur," and which calls him "our lo\'it 
servitour Arnold Bronckhorst our painter," and authorises 
the payment of threescoir four pundis rest and awand to 
him " for two portraits of his Majesty and one of George 
Buchanan," with an additional one hundred marks as " ane 
gratitude for his repairing to this countrey." A " grati- 
tude " is rather an amusing statement, because it appears 
from the preceding allusions that Van Brounckhurst had no 
desire to settle down in Scotland, but was compelled, if he 
saw any chance of a return on his expenditure, to do so. 

Of Lawrence Hilliard, named, no doubt, after his grand- 
mother, and who succeeded Nicholas, we know but little, and 
it is not easy, save in a very few instances where the por- 
traits are actualty signed, to distinguish his work from 
that of his father. An interesting allusion to him was 
discovered by Mr. Richard Goulding in the Hatfield Papers. 
It is contained in a letter from Nicholas Hilliard to the 
Earl of Salisbury, dated May 6th, 1606,^ and after referring 
to his having drawn a portrait of Lord Salisbury' some five 
years before, the painter goes on to say, " I found that 
favour with your Lordship that 3'our Lordship accepted 
my humble offer of my Soon Lawrence his service to your 
Lordship and your Lordship willed me to retajne him, 
still to perfect him more, in dra\s-ing which I have done. 

* Original at Hatfield. See transcription in Welbeck catalogue, 
P- 31- 


And he do the his Majesty now good service bothe in Hmned 
portraits and in ye Medales of Golde. And my hope and 
humble request is, that your Lordship upon his honorable 
and good ockasion wiU let him wayte on your Lordship in 
your Lordships Lyvery at ye feasts solempnising of St. 
George." Finally he adds, " I am as yet not hable to go 
abroade to which makes me humbly bolde to wryte this to 
your Lordship this 6th of Maye, 1606. Your honors most 
bounden and most humble at command Nic Hillyarde." 
In the following year^ (1607) Lawrence Hilliard was named 
by the King as " Limner in reversion after Nicholas 
Hillyard his father," and this was probably the privilege 
for which his father had pleaded in the letter quoted 

Another allusion to him is contained in Van der Doort's 
catalogue, where it is stated that Charles I. received the 
portrait of Queen Elizabeth, now in the Duke of Buccleuch's 
collection, from Lawrence HiUiard describing it as " done 
by Old Hilliard and bought by the King of young 

A final reference occurs in 1624 when Lawrence Hilliard 
was paid £42 from the treasury for five pictures, but the 
warrant does not specify whom they represented. The 
half-dozen ^ signed works by the younger Hilliard which 
are all I have been able to note are distinguished by the 
beauty of the calligraphy in which the inscriptions are 
written and by a richer and more varied colour scheme 
than that of the older artist. The writing is more florid 
and is full of exquisite curves and flourishes. I am disposed 
also to think that Lawrence's painting is not quite so 
formal, hard and rigid as was that of his father. 

Two other pupils besides his son Lawrence are given to 

^ State Papers, Dom. Series, 1603-1610, Oct. 5, 1607, xxviii. 374. 

* The three chief are, two belonging to Earl Beauchamp, dated 
respectively 1636 and 1638, and one in the Picrpont Morgan coUcc- 
tion, dated 1640. 


Plate VI. 


Nicholas Hilliard. By himself. 

In the Collection of Mr. L. Currie. 

Queen Anne of Denmark (1574-1619). By Nicholas Hilliard. 

In the Collection of the Duke of Portland, K.G. 

A Gentleman, name unknown (aged 37). By Lawrence Hilliard 
(ob. 1640). Signed. 

In the Collection of the Earl Beauchamp, K.G. 

Nicholas Hilliard. By himself. Signed and dated 1550, and 
inscribed Opera Qvedam ipsivs Nicholais Heliard in 


In the Collection of the Duke of Portland, K.G. 

A Gentleman, name unknown (aged 31). By Lawrence Hilliard 
(ob. 1640). Signed. 

In the Collection of the Earl Beauchamp, K.G. 




Hilliard by Haydocke. In the preface to his translation 
of Lomazzo on Painting (1598) he refers to Milliard's " two 
schollars M. Isaac Oliver for Limning and Rowland Lockey 
for Oyle and Lim : in some measure." To the former I 
make particular reference in the next chapter. Whether 
Rowland Lockey was a brother of Nicholas Lockey, a 
painter who was responsible for a portrait of John King, 
Bishop of London, is not known, and there is no information 
to be given concerning him more than that he is believed 
to have painted a group representing Sir Thomas More his 
family and his lineal heirs male, now belonging to Mr. 
Strickland and of which a fine water-colour copy is in the 
possession of Mrs. Sotheby. 

W' e do know that a.Rowland Lockey resided in Fleet Street, 
and that he is mentioned by Francis Meres in 1598, among 
the eminent artists then living in England. It has also 
been suggested that he and not Nicholas was responsible 
for the portrait of Dr. King and that Nicholas only directed 
the engraving of it — but with these few facts our informa- 
tion comes to an end. 

In Viscount Harcourt's collection there is a portrait of 
Lady Mary Sydney which resembles the work of Hilliard 
but is different in many respects from his ordinary per- 
formances and also from those of his son. I am disposed 
to attribute it to one of the Lockeys, and perchance also, a 
profile portrait of Queen Elizabeth in the same collection 
(both by very kind permission figured for the first time in 
this book) may have been the work of the other Lockey, 
although I am more inclined to give it to John Bossam or 
to Segar. 

Shute and Bet'.es are even more puzzling identi- 
ties. They are both mentioned by Haydocke, and Shute 
is usually identified, on the authority of W^alpole, with 
John Shute, the painter and architect, who published 
a treatise on architecture in 1563.^ To him I am inclined 

1 See Facsimile of Shute's Book by LawTcnce Weaver, Lond. 191 2 
P- 15- 


to give miniatures which appear to be signed with the 
conjoined initials J. S. or with the single initial S., one a 
portrait of Edward VI. belonging to Earl Beauchamp, 
and the other Dona Maria, Infanta of Portugal, who is said 
on good authority to have been in Paris when Shute passed 
through that city on his way to Italy. ^ Shute died on 
September 25th, 1563. There were two painters known as 
Bettes, John and Thomas, and I attribute to the latter a 
miniature of the Earl of Bristol in the Pierpont Morgan 
collection which is clearly signed T. B.^ There are miniatures 
belonging to this same period signed H. J., G. T. and I. S., 
but no artists have at present been discovered whose names 
correspond to these initials. 

^ In the Pierpont Morgan collection, see catalogue, Vol. I., No. 22. 
' Ibidem, No. 79. 



IT is rather a curious circumstance in connection with 
miniature painting, that so often the artists have to 
be regarded in couples. There were, as we have seen, 
two Hilliards. There are two Oh vers to be considered. 
Following them, we come to two persons of the name of 
Hoskins, one of whom was certainly a miniature painter, 
and the other almost certainly so. Then follow two 
Coopers, Alexander and Samuel, and there were two Engle- 
hearts, and two artists of the name of Lens, two named 
Beale, two Plimers, two Smarts, two Robertsons, two 
Petitots, and so on. 

Of the Olivers, we possess rather more information than 
of the artists who preceded them, and this father and son, 
Isaac and Peter Oliver, took very high positions with regard 
to miniature painting. They were far greater artists than 
were the Hilliards. The art made great advances in their 
hands. The figures themselves lost the fiat illuminated 
style which they had in Hilliard's time. They were far 
better drawn, possessed of a richer colour and greater 
modelling, while there was an expression of character and 
dignity about the works of Isaac and Peter Oliver, which 
was unequalled at that time in Europe, and indeed has 
hardly been approached since their day. 

It seems clear that Isaac Oliver was of French origin, 
and was bom about 1556, and Dr. Cust has pointed out 



that there is some reason for believing him to be identical 
with a certain Isaac Olivier of Rouen, who on February 9th, 
1602, was married at the Dutch Church, Austin Friars, to 
Sara Gheeraerts, and became naturalised on December 6, 
1606.^ He seems to think, and with some reason, that Oh ver's 
father and mother were Huguenots who took refuge in 
England when Rouen was captured by the Guises in 1562. 
Sara his wife appears to have been the daughter of Marcus 
Gheeraerts the elder, by his second wife Susanna de Critz, 
who was certainly related to John de Critz, serjeant painter 
to James I. We know that he was a pupil of Nicholas 
Hilliard, as Haydocke gives us this information in his 
introduction to Lomazzo's "Art of Painting." Other 
details which have been discovered respecting Oliver prove 
that he resided in Blackfriars, that he died on October 2nd, 
1617, aged about sixty-one, and that he was buried in the 
church of St. Anne, Blackfriars, where a monument was 
erected to his memory, with a bust and epitaph, which was 
destroyed in the Great Fire of London.^ His will was dated 
June 4th, 1617, and proved on October 30th, and by it his 
wife was appointed his executrix. He bequeathed all his 
drawings and lymnings to his eldest son Peter, the artist 
to whom I make allusion next. 

As regards Oliver's work, perhaps his most important 
drawing is the one he made of Queen Elizabeth, in the 
richly ornamented robes which are said to have been those 
in which she went to St. Paul's Cathedral, to return thanks 
for the defeat of the Spanish Armada. This portrait was 
finely engraved by Crispin van de Pass, the elder, and it 
has been stated that the original drawing for it by Oliver 
is the one on vellum now preserved in the Ro^'al collec- 

It has also been stated that he painted in oil, and Vertue, 

* Dr. Shaw's " Denisations and Naturalisations,' 191 1, p. 11. 
" D. N.IB. 


in his MSS./ refers to a portrait of the artist himself, 
painted in oil, and in two other places,^ to five different 
portraits, those of Thomas and William Pope, of Lord 
Chandos, of Thomas Cavendish, and of an unknown man, 
all painted in oil, on board, by Oliver, but it has not been 
found possible to identify with certainty any of these 

His miniatures can be found in almost every important 
collection, notably in the Royal collection, at Welbeck 
Abbey, in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch, and in 
the Strawberry Hill collection, which is now divided between 
Mr. Wingfield-Digby and Mr. Burdett-Coutts. One of 
his most notable works is the interesting group of the three 
sons of the second Viscount Montagu which he painted in 
1598, and which was saved from the disastrous fire at 
Cowdray in 1793, and now belongs to the Marquess of 
Exeter. There are two fine copies of this group in the 
possession of Earl Spencer. 

The works of Isaac Oliver possess one characteristic in 
common with those of Hilliard. There is no mystery 
about them. Every detail of the picture is seen in an 
equal light, and everything is in similar focus. Like his 
master, he aimed at elaboration, careful painting of all the 
details of embroidery, lace or jewellery, with infinite care, 
and an almost microscopic minuteness, but he had a richer 
sense of colour scheme, greater vigour in draughtsmanship, 
and a much fuller ability to represent flesh and to carry 
out the necessary modelling. Walpole ^ regarded him as 
a genius. He said that in England we " had nobody to put 
in competition with Oliver, except it be our own Cooper, 
who, though living in an age of freer pencil, and under the 
auspices of^Vandyck, scarce compensated, by^the^boldness 

1 B. M., Add. MSS. 23068.64, old pagination, really f.24ob. 
'^Ibidem, 23072-13 1'and 23073. f. 12. 
' " Anecdotes," 1762, I. 153. 


Plate VII. 



1. The Countess of Essex (the poisoner), wife of Robert Devereux, 

Earl of Essex. Signed. 

2. Queen Anne of Denmark. Signed. 

3. Mrs. Holland (1556-1617). Signed. 

All three in the Collection of Mrs. Sotheby. 

4. Prince Henry, son of James I., as a baby. 

In the Collection of the Earl of Dj-sart. 



of his expression, for the truth of nature and delicate 
fidehty of the older master." 

Of his career, we have practically no information, save 
one detached fact, that in 1596 he was in Venice, because 
he painted a portrait there of Sir Arundel Talbot, ^ and 
he gives us the information himself by an inscription on the 
reverse of the miniature. Mr. Goulding draws attention 
to the fact that miniatures dated as well as signed are 
somewhat rare. The earliest he quotes is the Duke of 
Buccleuch's miniature of Sir John Clench, which is dated 
1583, and he then mentions a fine example in the possession 
of the Queen of Holland, dated 1588. The Talbot miniature 
is dated 1596, the one belonging to Lord Exeter 
1598, a portrait in the Salting collection 1610, another 
anonymous portrait belonging to the Queen of Holland, 
1614, and three are dated 1616, one at Windsor, an- 
other at Belvoir, and the third in the Victoria and Albert 
Museum. Oliver's signature, as a rule, is composed of the 
conjoined initials L 0., the L being run through the middle 
of the O. It is generally to be seen in gold, and as a rule, 
on the right of the miniature as it faces the observer, very 
often low down, but there are recorded examples of Oliver's 
work bearing his own name, two drawings, for instance, at 
the British Museum, being signed Is. Ollivier. The last 
work which he commenced, he left incomplete. It was a 
large limning, representing the entombment of Christ, with 
a great number of figures. It eventually passed into the 
Royal collection, where it still remains. It was the subject. 
Dr. Cust tells us, of unstinted admiration from his contem- 

The younger Oliver was Isaac's son, perhaps by his first 
wife, because it would seem as though Isaac Oliver must 
have been married at least twice, and possibly even three 
times. Certainly, his younger sons were under age at the 

^ Now at the Victoria and Albert Museum. 


time of his death, and therefore must have been by a later 
•wife than the mother of Peter OHver, who was born in 
1594. The younger man resided at Isle worth, in Middlesex, 
and there he died in December, 1647, and he was buried on 
December 22nd beside his father in St. Anne's, Black- 
friars.^ Who his wife was, we do not know, except that 
her Christian name was Anne. It has been suggested that 
her name was Morrell, but this has probably arisen from 
confusion with a kinswoman of Isaac Oliver, one Judith 
Morrell, who is mentioned in the elder Oliver's will. We 
do possess, however, a rather interesting story concerning 
Mrs. Oliver, to the effect that after the Restoration, Charles 
II. heard that Oliver had made duplicates of most of the 
pictures which he had painted for Charles I., and finding 
that the widow was still living at Isleworth, went incognito 
to see these paintings. The widow declined to sell them 
until the King had seen them, desiring that he should have 
the first offer, whereupon the monarch disclosed his iden- 
tity, and purchased from Mrs. Oliver what she had left, 
:giving her in payment an annuity for life of some £300. 
It is then stated that on a subsequent occasion Mrs. Oliver 
spoke in strong language respecting the King's gift of 
certain of these miniatures to his mistresses, and the 
information concerning her bold speech was brought to the 
notice of the King, who thereupon stopped the payment 
of her annuity. This story was told to Vertue by Antony 
Russel the painter, whose grandfather, who was jeweller 
to James I., appears to have been a kinsman, and whose 
father, Theodore Russel, purchased from IMrs. Peter Oliver 
such paintings as she did not sell to the King.^ There is a 
portrait of Mrs. Oliver in existence, and a similar one of the 
painter himself. They are drawings in black lead, made 
on the two leaves of a pocket-book, and identified by 
inscriptions. These now rest in the Earl of Derby's 

» D. N. B. » B. M., Add. MSS. 2 1 1 1 1 ^ 9-5oa. 


The younger Oliver did not confine himself to painting 
miniatures. He made a number of copies in water-colour 
of celebrated pictures by the Old Masters. These were 
prepared, it is stated, for Charles I. at his o\\ti particular 
request, so that, moving about the country, he might have 
with him representations of the pictures to which he was 
so much attached. They were enumerated in the catalogue 
of the King's possessions, but were scattered after his 
execution. Six of them, however, still remain in the 
Royal possession at Windsor Castle. 

In regarding his work, we see a still further advance in 
the art from that of his father. There is more life in the 
expression, and the portraits show much greater knowledge 
of character. As paintings, Peter Ohver's works are dis- 
tinctly finer than those of his father; perhaps in elaboration, 
in delicate finish, and in minuteness of execution, they do 
not differ so much from those of the elder Oliver, but the 
modelling is more firm and solid, the effect grander and more 
life-like, and the paintings are executed with a greater 
breadth and ease, which was possibly the result of the 
artist's ha\'ing copied so many paintings by the older 
masters. The Strawberry Hill collection, to which allusion 
has just been made, contained one or two of Peter Oliver's 
finest works, notably the portraits of Sir Kenelm and Lady 
Digby which now belong to Mr. Wingfield-Digby, and the 
portrait of Sir Kenelm Digby and his family, a copy of a 
group by Vandyck, which is in the possession of Mr. 
Burdett-Coutts. His important miniatures are signed 
with the conjoined initials P. 0., and these initials are to 
be found, as are those of Isaac Oliver, as a rule, on the 
right of the miniature as it faces the spectator, and low 
down, fairly near to the edge of the portrait. Dated 
miniatures, recorded by Mr. Goulding in his invaluable 
catalogue of the Welbeck collection, belong to the years 
1619, 1620, 1621, 1626, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1634, i^^37» 
1639, 1640 and 1646. Two years afterwards, the artis^t 


Plate VIII. 


1. The Elector Palatine. Signed and dated. 

2. Called a portrait of Sir Kenelm Digby, and probably a member 

of that family. Signed. 

Both in the collection of Mrs. Sotheby. 

3. George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham (1592-1628). Signed. 

4. George Calvert, Baron Baltimore (1580 ?-i632). Signed. 

Both in the Collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queens- 
berry, K.T. 



was dead. There are more miniatures of the year 1621 
than of any other year. Two, representing the Queen of 
Bohemia and Charles I., are at Windsor Castle, two others, 
both representing Frederick the Electer Palatine of Bohe- 
mia, are, one of them in the collection of Mrs. Sotheby, and 
the other in that of the Duke of Buccleuch ; and another 
portrait of Charles I. is in Amsterdam, in the Rijks Museum. 
The paintings at Windsor Castle are those of the Marquess 
del Vasto and his family, after Titian, dated 1629 ; Jupiter 
and Antiope, after Correggio, dated 1633 ; the Education 
of Cupid, after the same master, 1634 ; the Lovers, after 
Titian, 1637 '> ^^^ St. Luke and the Madonna, 1639, and the 
Madonna and Child with St. John, 1640. There is also 
a fine painting of the Marriage of St. Catherine, dated 
1639, ii^ the Pierpont Morgan collection, and two good 
examples of Peter Oliver's work in this copying of old 
master pictures in miniature can be seen in the Victoria 
and Albert Museum, while yet another is in the possession 
of the Marquess of Exeter. Three miniatures by Oliver 
are contained in the Welbeck Abbey collection. 

As a rule, the miniatures painted by both the Olivers are 
oval, but some are heart-shaped, and in a few instances 
the portraits are square. The background is frequently 
formed by a reddish curtain, sometimes by portions of two 
curtains, one on either side of the sitter. A plain clear 
violet background is also to be found, and one occasionally 
appears of dull grey, while the old blue ground, which was 
almost invariably used by Holbein and Hilliard, was stiU 
a very favourite colour in use by the Olivers. Just a few 
of his miniatures have a brown background, and one, 
which I saw some years ago in the Emperor's collection at 
Petrograd, had a background which was nearly black. 
The elder Oliver frequently painted with a landscape back- 
ground. There is a well-known portrait of Sir Philip 
Sidney in a garden, and there are other miniatures by this 
artist, somewhat similar in character ; for example, a por- 


trait of the Earl of Essex and his wife, which was at one 
time at Castle Howard, represented the two seated in their 
garden. The sons of Lord Montagu are depicted standing 
in a panelled room, and Lord Dorset, whose portrait is to 
be seen at South Kensington, is shown seated at a table 
in his own room. These varieties are mentioned in order 
that it may be seen how the Olivers began to break away 
from the tradition of a simple portrait on a blue background. 
One further matter should be mentioned, and that is with 
regard to the painting of the hair. Both the Olivers, but 
especially Isaac, frequently represented the hair in the 
portraits of women as falling thickly over the shoulders, 
and the hair itself is painted in soft, flocculent masses, 
quite different from the definitely outlined way in which 
Holbein or Hilliard painted it, and different even from the 
way in which the same two artists as a rule treated the hair 
of their men sitters. It would look as though the fine, 
rich hair of a woman appealed very strongly to both 
artists, and, desirous of presenting it gleaming with light 
and shown in an airy, transparent manner, they altered 
the accepted technique, and adopted one peculiar to them- 
selves. This course was not followed by those who suc- 
ceeded them, and it was left for the eighteenth centur\', 
and especially for Cosway, to treat the hair of women in 
portraits in somewhat similar fashion to that which a 
couple of generations before had been adopted by the 
Olivers, father and son. 



THE next two miniature painters to be considered 
are the father and son who bore the same name,. 
John Hoskins, and in considering them, we are 
at once face to face with a difficulty. It has not been 
accepted by all writers on miniature painting that there 
were these two painters named Hoskins, and it would 
be well to give some space to a brief consideration of the 
arguments concerning their existence. 

William Sanderson, in his " Graphice," published in 
1658, in a hst of artists, writes thus : " For Miniture or 
Limning in water Colours Hoskins and his Son the next 
modem since the HiUiards, Father and Son ; those Pieces 
of the Father (if my judgment faile not) incomparable." 
This is reasonably definite evidence of the existence of two 
men, both of them painters. George Vertue gives us the 
same information. In describing the miniature belonging 
to Lord Oxford in one of his MSS., he writes about it as 
" so well done in drawing colouring and finishing that he 
[Flatman] may well deserve the Title of a Master in the 
Art of Limning and indeed equal to Hoskins senior or 
junior and next in immitation of Samuel Cooper." * 
Samuel Redgrave, in his Catalogue of the Miniatures at 
South Kensington in 1865,2 states that the younger Hoskins 

^ B. M., Add. MSS. 23072.74 old pagination, and Welbeck cata- 
logue, p. 94. a Page 293 



painted a portrait of James II. in 1686, but he gives no 
authority for this statement, and therefore its accuracy 
cannot easily be checked. These are the only three definite 
statements concerning the existence of two painters of 
the same name of which I am aware, but the proof that a 
second John Hoskins did hve is to be found in the will of 
the John Hoskins who died in the February of 1664-5, 
from which it would appear that the testator bequeathed 
to his son John £20 for a ring or to be expended otherwise 
as he should think lit. 

I was incUned to think at one time that the question 
whether the younger Hoskins was a painter of miniatures 
had been settled by the existence of a portrait of James 
Fitzjames, Duke of Berwick, painted in 1700, which was 
signed Hoskins.^ I am afraid, however, that the evidence 
is not quite definite, because the costimie of the person 
represented in the miniature, who certainly does resemble 
other portraits of the Duke of Berwick, although not very 
closely, hardly coincides with the period of 1700, and 
is much more like that of the period which lasted from 
1660 up to 1670. The inscription on this particular 
miniature must not, however, be hurriedly cast aside, 
for the arms on the portrait are undoubtedly those of the 
Duke of Berwick. The inscription also appears whoUy 
original, and to have been executed at the same time as 
the arms, and the Duke of Berwick would have been, as 
it states, twenty-nine in 1700. If it is to be accepted as 
proving the existence of the younger Hoskins, this imphes 
that he was living in 1700, an even later date than that 
mentioned by Redgrave. At present no one has been able 
to find the will of this second John Hoskins, nor any proof 
of when his death took place. The elder Hoskins, we know, 
died in February, 1664-5, ^f^ he is expressly termed " the 
limner," but although, as we have seen, he mentioned his 

^ Morgan catalogue I. p. 86. 


son in his will, he does not say that he was following the 
same profession, and we have no clear proof at present that 
the younger Hoskins was a miniaturist, beyond the state- 
ments made by Sanderson and Vertue, to which allusion 
has just been made. I think, however, that it ought to 
be taken for granted that Sanderson was speaking of what 
he knew, and Vertue was a reliable observer, who was not 
in the habit of making statements which cannot be veri- 
fied. I believe, therefore, definitely, not merely in the 
existence of a younger Hoskins, but in the fact that he was 
a miniature painter, and this regardless of the doubt 
thrown upon his existence by some other writers, notably 
by Mr. J. J. Foster in his book on Samuel Cooper. 

In considering the separate existence of the two men, I 
am disposed to think that the opponents of the theory 
that both were miniature painters, have ignored the 
evidence of Sanderson, which is very definite and is also 

There is one more piece of evidence that ought perhaps to 
be mentioned. Several of the miniatures in Lord Dysart's 
collection at Ham House have inscriptions \mtten on the 
back of them which speak of the artist as " Old He skins." 
One, and one only, has a similar inscription, w^hich refers 
to " Young Hoskins." Some of these inscriptions are, in 
my opinion, contemporary, others perhaps are not so. 
They have been compared with the writing of various 
membersof the owner's family, and they do not resemble it. 
The owner himself regards them as very early inscriptions, 
and says that they have nothing whatever to do with his 
family, so far as he knows. They do not carry us very 
far, but they do imply the existence of two painters of 
the same name, who were, when these inscriptions were 
written, cunently known as " Old Hoskins " and " Young 

It has also been stated that Young Hoskins painted a 
portrait of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey. That portrait. 


Plate IX. 

(one died in 1665). 

Sir Benjamin Rudyard. Signed and dated 1664. 
In the Collection of Mrs. Sotheby. 

Charles I (1600- 1649). Set with a companion portrait of Queen 
Henrietta Maria in a fine enamel case by Toutin. 
In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 

Sir John Maynard (1602-1690). 

In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 



which is in the collection of Mrs. Sotheby, is dated 1663. 
It does not resemble, in its technique, the work of the 
miniatures which were undoubtedly painted by the elder 
Hoskins in the period extending from 1630 down to 1650, 
and it seems almost certain that it was painted by another 
artist of the same name ; if so, there is but little doubt that 
the artist was the younger Hoskins. 

As to whether we can distinguish the works of the father 
from those of the son by the difference in the signature is 
quite another matter. Vertue says that the father signed 
his name in monogram, and that the initials of I. H., stand- 
ing separately with several curious variations, w^ere those 
of the son. On the whole, I think Vertue was right. Most 
of the miniatures that are signed with the joint initials 
are certainly earlier, as Mr. Goulding ^ has pointed out, 
in point of date, than those bearing the signature J. H. 
Just a few, as he says, are contemporary with the early 
specimens marked I. H., and he adds that, with the excep- 
tion of two miniatures painted in oil, he had seen none 
signed with the monogram which belong to a period later 
than 1630-40. The implication, therefore, is, that the 
elder Hoskins signed with the conjoined initials, and the 
younger with the initials separately, and not conjoined, 
or conjoined in a different fashion, not forming a mono- 
gram. The father's monogram is the H. with the I. 
run right through it. 

Of the Ufe of Hoskins himself, we know practically no- 
thing. AU we can say is that he was the uncle of Alexander 
and of Samuel Cooper, who were his pupils, that he made 
two dra\vings for the Great Seal of Charles I. which were 
preserved in the Royal collection, that he died in February, 
1664/5, and was buried in St. Paul's Church, Co vent Garden. 
The only two contemporary allusions to his actual work 
that Mr. Goulding in his researches was able to find are, 

^ Welbeck catalogue, p. 37. 


first, one which appears in the account book of John Holies, 
the first Earl of Clare, which is preserved at Welbeck 
Abbey. In this it is stated that Lord Clare paid £14 " to 
Hoskins ye picture-drawer for 2, pictures in little." 
The other is a similar reference which is to be found in 
the Duke of Rutland's papers respecting the payment of £15 
in 1658 to Hoskins for a portrait of lx)Td Roos.^ 

It has even been suggested that there may have been 
three men bearing the name of John Hoskins, two of whom 
were hmners. Mr. Kennedy points out that we know, 
from an entry in Pepys' Diary, that " Mr. Cooper's cosen 
Jacke " Hoskins was alive in 1668, and it is probable that 
he was still living in 1672, as he is mentioned in Cooper's 
will, which was proved in the July of that year. We know 
of no example of Hoskins' work later than 1663, and if the 
"cosen Jacke" was the artist who signed I. H., it is curious 
that there should be nothing in existence signed later 
than 1663. On the other hand, if it v/as " cosen Jacke's " 
father who died in 1664-5, we have to imagine the existence 
of a grandfather who painted miniatures. Two of the 
miniatures in the Duke of Buccleuch's collection appear 
to give us portraits of a John Hoskins the elder and a John 
Hoskins the j-ounger. One, which is called a self portrait 
of the artist, was engraved in 1802, as a portrait of John 
Hoskins the elder, and has at the back of it another repre- 
sentation of the same person as the central figure of a 
group with his wife and four children, perhaps representing 
the whole Hoskins family. The other, generally called a 
portrait of a man unknowii, has the work " IPSE " in 
gold letters under the signature and date 1656, and this 
may surely be accepted as a self-portrait of the j-ounger 

I do not pretend to be able to distinguish with any 
certain degree of accuracy between the work of the two 

1 Hist. MSS. Com. Duke of Rutland's MSS., Belvoir Castle, Vol, 
iv. 540. 


men. I am convinced in my own mind that there were 
two (even if not three), and in all probability their work 
could be distinguished by their signatures, but one special 
difficulty is in the way. The examples signed I. H. in 
monogram are hardly any of them dated. The examples 
signed H. the first stroke of which is surmounted by a dot, 
are also hardly any of them dated ; in fact, I only know of 
two, one dated 1638, and one 1644, but of those signed 
J. H. -with two separate letters, there are a long series of 
dated miniatures, beginning with 1632 and ending with 
1663. In all probabiUtj', many of these were the work of 
the younger man, but at present we have no proof of it. 
Probably the portrait of Lord Roos painted in 1658 was 
by the 3'ounger Hoskins. The monograms, whichever 
form they assume, are not very easy at times to identify, 
as they are often painted in black on the darker part of 
the background, and the miniature has to be held sideways, 
so that the light may reveal the letters, which are fre- 
quently on the left of the miniature, facing the spectator, 
and not on the right, as the initials of the Olivers were 
usually placed. Sometimes they are placed so exceedingly 
close to the edge of the portrait that they are partially 
obscured by the frame, and in such instances, it is desirable 
that the miniature should be unframed, and the signature, 
in whatever form it is, will be exposed. 

Richard Graham, in his appendix to the " Art of Paint- 
ing," 1695, tells us that Hoskins " was bred a face painter 
in oil, but afterwards taking to miniature, far exceeded 
what he did before." As to his work, it is certainly of 
very high merit. His colour scheme is more quiet and 
sober than that of his predecessors, and his miniatures, as 
a rule, are simple and dignified ; sometimes they may almost 
be termed magnificent, they are so broad in their execution, 
and so powerful. Simplicity and dignity in fact are the 
keynotes in Hoskins' work. His colouring is sometimes a 
little crude, but on the whole quiet and sober, while 


the presentation of character is true, and invariably 
serious. In flesh tints, he favoured a peculiarly ruddy, 
rather brick-dust hue, which has at times become 
brown by the effect of light. His backgrounds are cloudy, 
or with foliage, or else of a peculiarly blue mottled effect, 
sometimes, but very rarely, with a curtain. There is no 
such thing, so far as I have ever seen it, as a smiling 
Hoskins, but many of his portraits may be termed 
pathetic, notably one belonging to Lord Exeter, of Charles 
II. as a boy. His f^ces are almost always thoughtful, those 
of women demure and quiet, those of men, serious, as 
befitted the times in which the artist Uved. The largest 
miniature which Hoskins ever painted, perhaps one of 
his finest (by some critics it has been claimed as his very 
finest), is a portrait of Catherine Bmce, Countess of Dysart, 
painted in 1638. It is rectangular, and enclosed in the 
original box or casket in which it was first put. Whether 
the artist was peculiarly proud of this fine miniature, and 
thought it the best work he had ever executed, we cannot 
teU, but he signed it in a way in which, so far as my pre- 
sent information goes, he signed no other miniature, 
putting his name as " Hoskin " and elongating the first 
stroke of the " H " into a " J," so as to form a kind of 

Other fine examples of his work exist in the collections 
of the Duke of Buccleuch, the Duke of Rutland, in the Royal 
collection and in those of the Duke of Devonshire, ^Ir. 
Pierpont Morgan and Mrs. Sotheby. Among the treasures 
of the Pierpont Morgan collection are the portraits of 
Charles I. and Queen Henrietta Maria, painted by Hoskins, 
set in a wonderful enamelled case by Toutin.^ The case 
is of peculiar interest, because the very etching for it is 
known still to exist. Another is a dehghtful portrait 
of Queen Henrietta Maria, in a contemporary frame, of a 

* Morgan catalogue, I. p. 83. 


very unusual shape, oval, divided into curved segments, 
the lines of which are closely followed by the bevelled glass 
in the frame, which is probably the original glass for the 
portrait.^ The only other large miniature by Hoskins 
which is in any way comparable with the one at Ham House 
is another portrait of this same Queen, a large oval one at 
the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam. 

Just occasionally, Hoskins varied his quiet, solemn 
scheme of colour for something a little brighter. Mr. 
Morgan has in his collection a portrait of Sir Charles Lucas, ^ 
signed by Hoskins with two separate initials and dated 
1645, in which, across the white costume, has been thrown 
a rich crimson and gold scarf, with a very brilliant effect. 
This also is contained in its original frame, an enamelled 
locket, probably made as a memorial of Lucas for some 
member of his family, and having a representation of a man 
and woman standing near to their tombs, and crowned 
with a crown of martyrdom by an angel who is showTi 
descending from the sky. 

A portrait a little larger than usual is also one of the 
treasures of the Pierpont Morgan collection, and represents 
MoU Davis,' whom Pepys declared to be a bastard daugh- 
ter of Thomas Howard, Earl of Berkshire, and whom he 
pronounces " the most impertinent slut in the world." 
Before she attracted the attention of King Charles H. 
she used to perform in various plays, and was particularly 
celebrated for singing, with much feeling, the new song 
" My lodging is on the cold, cold ground." The title of 
this song gave point to many of the witty remarks that 
were made respecting her later life. She was the woman 
whom Nell Gw^nn so hated, and on one occasion when 
they were supping with the King, Nell mixed a quantity 
of jalap with the sweetmeats which Moll Davis was eating, 
and by this means is said to have produced a revulsion 

^ Morgan catalogue, I. p. 84. * Ibidem, p. 82. » Ibidem, p. 81. 


Plate X. 

(one died in 1665). 

Queen Henrietta Maria (1609-1669). 

In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 

Called Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton (1603- 
1639-40). Signed and dated 1648. 
In the Collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, 



of feeling on the part of the King, which was the imme- 
diate cause of her loss of royal favour. She was the mother 
of Lady Mary Tudor, who aftenvards became the Countess 
of Derwentwater. She was not a beautiful creature, to 
judge, at least, from the big miniature which Hoskins 
painted of her, representing her in a bright blue costume 
turned up with yellow, and with auburn hair. In this 
particular case, the background is formed by greenish blue 
curtains, but a patch of the blue light that Hoskins so 
much loved can be seen in the background. 

As an example of Hoskins' more dignified work, the por- 
trait of Sir John Maynard ^ in the same collection may well 
be referred to. Here we get in the background the land- 
scape with a tree, which Hoskins was almost the earliest 
painter to introduce, not quite the first of course, because 
Oliver introduced a garden, but a little patch of landscape 
with a single tree was really the idea of Hoskins, and was 
a very favourite scheme in his work. 

There are two examples of Hoskins' work to be seen at 
the Victoria and Albert Museum, one signed with the 
monogram, the portrait of a gentleman, name unknown, 
and another, which is not quite in its original condition, 
and represents Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke. This 
latter forms part of the Jones bequest. There is one portrait 
by him of Viscount Conway, dated 1653, in the Wallace 
collection, but the majority of his miniatures are in private 
hands, and contained in the collections already mentioned. 

Particular care in purchasing miniatures by Hoskins 
must be taken to see that they have not been touched up. 
There is hardly any miniature painter's work amongst the 
earlier painters whose portraits are easier to touch up than 
are those of Hoskins, and very often the blue, especially 
of costume, or sky, or gown, has been altered or repainted. 
This, it will readily be recognised, means a grievous deteri- 
oration in the value of the portrait. 

^ Morgan catalogue, I. p. 79. 



SAMUEL COOPER was the most important painter 
of miniatures in the Enghsh School, indeed I may 
almost call him the greatest painter of miniatures 
who has ever Uved. I think in taking this view, I should 
be supported by most of the authorities on the subject ; 
almost all unite in considering the works of Cooper the most 
notable miniature portraits that have ever been executed. 
Of the life of the man himself, we have not very much 
information. He was bom in London in 1609, and trained, 
with his brother Alexander, by their uncle, John Hoskins, 
who is declared to have become jealous of him, as very 
speedily he surpassed his master in skill. Aubrey, in his 
" Lives of Eminent Men," calls Samuel Cooper " the prince 
of limners," and says that he " drew his pictures as hke 
as art could afford," and goes on to add of a portrait of 
Thomas Hobbes that it was " one of the best pieces that 
ever he did which His Majesty at his return bought of him, 
and conserves as one of his greatest rarities in his closet 
at Whitehall." 

Graham, in his " Short Account of the Most Eminent 
Painters," goes still further, adding that Cooper was 
" equal to the most famous ItaUans," and adds that 
" hardly any one of his predecessors has ever been able to 
show so much perfection in so narrow a compass." He 
gives us the additional information that Cooper was a 



musician, saying that " answerable to his abilities in this 
art was his skill in Music, and he was reckon 'd one of the 
best lutenists, as well as the most excellent limner in his 

John Evelyn, in his Diary, has an interesting allusion to 
Cooper, whom he calls " ye rare limner." He tells us that 
Cooper was called to make the drawing of the King's face 
and head from which the designs for the new coinage were 
to be made and that he had the honour to hold the candle 
while Cooper was preparing the crayon drawing, " he 
(Cooper) choosing the night and candlehght for the better 
finding out the shadows." 

It is from Pepys,^ however, that we obtain the most 
important references to Cooper, although, unfortunately, 
the portrait he is declared to have painted for the diarist 
of Mrs. Pepys cannot now be identified. As recently ls in 
September, 1850, it is stated to have been in existence, 
but what has become of it since that date, no one seems to 
know. Pepys tells us that he called on Cooper on July ist, 
1668, " to know when my wife shall come and sit for her 
picture," and he goes on to tell us that on the 6th of the 
same month she gave her first sitting to the artist, Pepys 
himself, W. Hewer and Deb, Mrs. Pepys' maid, being present 
on that occasion. He then speaks of Cooper as " a most 
admirable workman and good company." A couple of 
days later, Pepys is again to be found at Cooper's studio 
in Henrietta Street " with my wife to Cooper's and thus 
saw her sit and he do do extraordinary things indeed." 
Two days later, the portrait was nearly completed, and he 
makes the following entry : " To Cooper's, and there find 
my wife and W. Hewer and Deb sitting and painting, and 
here he do work finely, though I fear it will not be so like 
as I expected." Three days more passed, and by that time 
the portrait has become much more like the sitter. Pepys 

• Wheatley's edit, viii., pp. 55, 56, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 78. 


was more pleased and thus writes : " July 13 to Cooper's 
and spent the afternoon with them ; and it will be an excel- 
lent picture," and then finally on August loth, he makes 
this entry in his diary : " To Cooper's, where I spent all 
the afternoon with my wife and girl, seeing him make an 
end of her picture, which he did to my great content, though 
not so great as I confess, I expected, being not satisfied in 
the greatness of the resemblance, nor in the blue garment, 
but it is most certainly a most rare piece of work as to the 
painting. He hath £30 for his work — and the chrystal 
and case and gold case comes to £8 y. j\d. and which I 
sent him this night, that I might be out of his debt." ^ 

The other reference that Pepys makes to Cooper em- 
phasises the statement Graham had given us as to the 
artist's capabilities in music. " Now I understand," 
writes Pepys, " his great skill in musick his playing and 
setting to the French lute most excellently and he speaks 
French, and indeed is a most excellent man."^ The 
allusion to his knowledge of the French language bears 
out the statement Walpole makes in which he tells us that 
Cooper lived long in France and Holland. It is, however, 
somewhat curious that, if this was the case, we know so 
very little of the miniatures painted by Cooper on the 
Continent, and few examples of his work are to be found in 
foreign collections, with the exception of those belonging 
to the Queen of Holland, the Rijks Museum at Amster- 
dam, and an important private collection in Sweden. 
On the other hand portraits by him abound in all 
the chief English collections, and the majority of the por- 
traits which bear his signature are those of Englishmen or 

It is well known that it was Cooper who painted the most 
notable portrait of Oliver Cromwell, and the story has 
often been repeated how the Protector caught Cooper 

^ Wheatley's edit, \-iii. p. 78. * Ibidem, p. 64. 


making a copy for himself of the portrait and took it away 
from him. The original drawing is said to be the one 
in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire, and the copy, 
that which is now in the collection of the Duke of Buc- 
cleuch. It is to one of these portraits that Walpole refers 
in the oft-quoted passage in which he says that " if a glass 
could expand Cooper's pictures to the size of Vandyck's, 
they would appear to have been painted for that propor- 
tion." This passage appears in a lengthy account of Cooper's 
works which Walpole gives in his " Anecdotes of Painting " 
when he states that the miniaturist owes a great part of 
his merit to his careful study of the works of Vandyck, 
" but yet," says he, " may be called an original genius as 
he was the first who gave the strength and freedom of oil 
to miniature." " Cooper's miniatures," he says again, 
" are so bold that they seem perfect nature, only of a less 
standard." ^ 

There is unfortunately very little to add in the way of 
information concerning Cooper's life. We know that he 
lived in Henrietta street, Covent Garden, then a fashion- 
able part of London. We know also that he had flattering 
verses addressed to him by a certain Mrs. Katherine 
Phihps (1631-1664), a writer of verses, known in her day 
as the " matchless Orinda," and actually spoken of as the 
greatest poetess of which England could boast, and there 
are various other allusions to him, praising his work, in 
writings of the day. Of his actual career, however, we 
hav€ very little knowledge at all, until the close of his life, 
and then the Duke of Rutland's papers at Bel voir reveal 
to us some facts about his last illness. In January, 1672, 
he had painted a portrait of John Cecil, fourth Earl of 
Exeter, and a desire had been expressed by Lord Exeter 
that he should execute a companion miniature of his wife. 

^ Walpole's " Anecdotes," Dallaway edition, II. 145- 


Plate XI. 


1. John, Earl of Loudoun (1598-1662). 

2. James, Duke of Monmouth (1649-1685). 

Both in the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, 



This was never completed, however, and we learn the fact 
from two letters. On April gth, 1672, Mr. Charles Manners 
wrote a letter to Lord Roos, in which the following words 
appear : "I will hasten 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." Probably, however, many of these 
several things were never executed by Cooper, for in a little 
more than a month, actually on May 4th in the same year, 
Mr. Manners wrote again to Lord Roos, and in that letter 
says, " It hath bin impossible for mee to sende my Lady 
Exester's picture though Mr. Cooper promiseti with all 
imaginable respect and kindeness to finish it out of hand, 
and actually began it, but just then fell dangerously sicke, 
and was confyned to his bed, and I very much feare hee 
cannot possibly outlive 3 days. If hee should live, your 
Lordship shall have it surely exactly compleated, if hee 
dye I shall redemaunde that which was put into his hands, 
and sende it to your Lordship."^ As a matter of fact, 
however, we know, from Mary Beale's diary, that Cooper 
died the very day after this letter was written, as she 
writes on Sunday, May 5th, 1672, " Dyed this day Mr. 
Samuel Cooper, the most famous limner of the world for 
a face," and therefore the miniature of Lady Exeter was 
never completed, and there is no evidence to show that 
even the sketch commenced by the artist ever came into 
Lord Exeter's hands. 

He had been appointed limner to Charles II., and the 
Exchequer accounts speak of the office he held and of the 
stipend he received from it.* On his decease we learn that 
the King was graciously inclined to grant Mrs. Cooper 
£200 per annum for her life, she, it is said, having agreed 

^ Morgan catalogue, I. No. iii, with facsimiles of both letters. 
' Exchequer Accounts, K. R. Bundle, 441, 10 and 11. 


Plate XII. 


1. Christiana, wife of Samuel Cooper {ob. 1693. .^t. 70). 

2. Sk Frescheville Holies (1641-1672). By Samuel Cooper. 

Signed and dated 1669. 

Both in the Collection of the Duke of Portland, K.G. 



to deliver into his hands several pictures or pieces of her 
husband's limning of a very considerable value. ^ 

This Mrs. Cooper, the painter's wife, was Christiana, 
daughter of WiUiam Turner of York, and her sister Edith 
was the mother of Alexander Pope the poet. According 
to a document that for a long time was preserved in the 
Pope family, Mrs. Cooper is said to have handed over to her 
sister many sketch-books belonging to her husband, to- 
gether with his colour boxes and colours, and some cups 
" of precious agate " in which he compounded his pigments, 
and there is still a tradition in the Pope family that all 
these treasures have been preserved by some member of that 
family, and were deposited for greater security at a bank, 
where it is said they still exist. Alexander Pope the linen 
draper, who married Mrs. Cooper's sister, was a man of 
substantial means, and is said to have been greatly inter- 
ested in his wife's artist brother, and to have highly valued 
the drawings he received, stating that in his opinion they 
were of considerable importance and were to be kept in the 
family. Hence it is the tradition remains that they have 
been so retained, and it seems possible to hope that some 
day or other these treasures of inestimable importance in 
connection with the art of miniature painting may yet be 
discovered. Pope is stated to have erected the monu- 
ment in Old St. Pancras Church to the memory of Cooper 
and of his wife. It was at Cooper's own wish that he was 
buried in St. Pancras Church, although he was living in 
the parish of St. Paul's, Covent Garden. 

Mr. Foster, in his work on this artist, tells us that 
Cooper's wiU was proved on July 4th, 1672, and that by 
it he appointed his " dearly loved wife " sole executrix. 
He left to various members of the Hayles family 20s. each 
for a ring, and similar sums to his " cozon John Hoskins " 
and to his wife and daughter, and also to his " cozon 

' Shaw's Calendar of Treasury Books, 1672-5, p. 180. 


Francis Hoskins " and to his wife Mary. Mr. Foster also 
tells us that Cooper was possessed of various lands in or 
near Coventry which he bequeathed to Mrs. Cooper. 

On the monument to his memory which is still to be 
seen, there is a long Latin inscription, in which he is termed 
the Apelles of England, the glory of his age and of his art, 
a consummate artist in miniature, and a man who possessed 
eminent mental endowments, exquisite genius, skill in 
many languages, and manners that were most charming. ^ 
We know something of his appearance, as a miniature in 
the Victoria and Albert Museum signed by him " S. C." 
and dated 1657, is stated to be his portrait. There is also 
a crayon portrait certainly representing Cooper, which was 
originally in the possession of Mr. Graham, a collector, 
and this was copied by Lens. The miniature is in the 
collection of the Duke of Portland, at Welbeck, and on the 
label Lens has written the following words : "Samuel Cooper, 
a Famous Performer in Miniature stil'd Van Dyck in little, 
he Died in London in ye year 1672, 63 year of his Age. 
Bernard Lens fecit." Another copy, on ivory, by Lens, of 
this same portrait is in the collection of the Marquess of 
Bristol at Ickworth, and on the back of that Lens has added 
that Cooper has " far exceeded all that went before him 
in England in that way, and been equell the most Famous 
Italians," together with the further information that the 
copy was done " from ye Original! in Creons by himself 
in ye collection of Mr. Graham." From Mr. Graham's col- 
lection the drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum 
appears to have passed to Queen Caroline, thence succes- 
sively to Mr. Dalton, Horace Walpole, Mr. Strong of 
Bristol and to Alexander Dyce, coming to the Museum 
from the last-mentioned person. 

There is, however, as Mr. Goulding has pointed out, a 
certain amount of doubt whether this portrait was actually 

^ Welbeck catalogue, p. 24. 


drawn by Cooper himself, because Vertue, in one of his 
MSS./ refers to a portrait in crayon of Cooper, perhaps not 
this actual work, but probably one similar to it, which, he 
says, Mrs. Pope, Mrs. Cooper's sister, remembered very 
well, and also recollected its being done, " not," he adds, 
" by Cooper himself, but by Jackson, [sic] who painted 
in that way to the life, and was related to Cooper." Another 
copy of this same portrait is in my own collection, and a 
little portrait, painted in sepia on a piece of paper which 
had been twice folded, is in the Pierpont Morgan collection, 
and claimed to represent Cooper, and to have been drawn 
by himself. It had a somewhat interesting provenance, 
which was not discovered until after the catalogue had been 
printed, as on an envelope in which this miniature had 
been contained, were written the words " Given mee by 
Mrs. Pope " in a handwriting which appeared to belong to 
the end of the eighteenth century. 

Two other references to Cooper's work were discovered 
by Mr. Goulding. They concern an experiment on the 
part of the artist in painting in oil. Vertue thus writes : ^ 
" Samuel Cooper, limner, tryd at oyl painting. Mr. Hayles 
seeing that, tum'd to limning, & told Cooper that if [he] 
Quitted limning, he would imploy himself that way for 
which reason Cooper kept to limning." It is possible 
that the picture that he experimented over was his own 
portrait, because Vertue adds thus : "A picture of Sam 
Cooper limner painted in oyl by himself, only the head, 
very Hke him, was in his house when he died," and then 
finally tells us " His widow sold all his goods to one Priest- 
man, woollen drapper, comer of Henrietta Street, Covent 
Garden. "3 

Another curious experiment on the part of the artist is 
represented by a miniature in my own collection, depicting 

^ B. M., Add. MSS. 23070, ^Sh old pagination. 

* Ibidem, 23069, 2^h old pagination. 

' Ibidem, 2^oyo, i. ^gb, zih old pagination. 


Plate XIII. 


Noah Bridges. Signed. 

Collection of Mrs. Sotheby. 

Col. Graham of Netherby. Signed and dated 1650. 
In the Collection of Mrs. John Abercrombie. 

The Duke of York, afterwards James II. Signed. 
Collection of Mrs. Sotheby. 



Sir Thomas May, poet and historian, secretary and the 
historiographer to the Parliament. This is painted on a 
piece of rough mutton-bone. In its execution, GDoper 
entirely altered his ordinary technique, painting on this 
hard and shghtly luminous material in a definite, rigid 
fashion, quite imlike his usual broad treatment. It is, in 
fact, so different from an ordinary miniature by Cooper, 
that had it not been for the evidence which came with the 
portrait from the Burrell collection, I should have hesitated 
to accept it as the work of Cooper at all. There was, 
however, no doubt as to whom it represented, nor as to its 
history, because there was a letter in the possession of the 
family which described it as an experiment on the part of 
Samuel Cooper, painted on a piece of bone just at the time 
when May was issuing his " History of the ParUament in 
England." That would be about 1647, ^^^ the miniature 
is still preserved in its original and contemporary silver 

As regards Cooper's miniatures, it must first of all be 
noted that many of his finest works were left incomplete, 
as for example the portraits of the Duke of Monmouth 
and the Duke of Albemarle in the Royal collection, and 
the two already mentioned of Oliver CromweU in the posses- 
sion of the Duke of Devonshire and the Duke of Buccleuch. 
Perhaps these unfinished portraits are the most striking. 
They are wonderful representations of character, full of 
inspiration and virility. Whether Cooper was actually 
indifferent to the manner in which his sitters were clothed, 
or whether it was, as has been suggested, that he had so 
little time given him for sittings that he had only oppor- 
tunity to do his utmost for the faces, and had to leave all 
the rest, no one can tell, but whatever may have been the 
reason, these unfinished portraits — and to those already 
mentioned there must be added one that belongs to Lord 
Cobham, another of the Duchess of Cleveland in the Royal 
collection, a portrait belonging to Lord Gosford and a 


sketch belonging to the Duke of Sutherland — are amongst 
his most important works. It is perchance, because of the 
actual absence of draperies and the necessity for all the 
effort to be concentrated upon the face, that they are so 
specially attractive, but no artist prior to the time of Cooper, 
and perhaps hardly any one since his time, has been so 
successful in laying bare in a few strokes the very character 
of the sitter, and in presenting a living portrait, full of 
truth and character. 

WTien we come to deal with his finished paintings, we 
notice at once the quiet key he adopted in his colour scheme. 
The harmony is subdued and tender, exquisite silvery greys, 
beautiful duU browns, a sky background of mingled pale 
blue and greyish white and draperies of blue, brown or 
black, full of delightful shadows, and then, gleaming out 
from amidst these solemn, rather Quakerish surroundings, 
the stem, strong faces of his male sitters, or the quiet 
pathetic melancholy of the women who sat to him. Hardly 
any pure white is to be seen in his portraits. Even in one 
of his most wonderful portraits of women, that of Mrs. 
Middleton in Lord Beauchamp's collection, in which the 
pathetic figure is draped entirely in white, it can be found, 
on careful inspection, to be bathed in so dehcate and subtle 
a shadow that though the effect is exquisitely white, yet 
the paint itself is not the sohd dead white which a man of 
lesser experience might have used, but is suffused with 
a wonderful grey hue. Generally speaking, however. 
Cooper's women's portraits are not as impressive as are 
those of the men, but of the men, w-hether it be the younger, 
aristocratic type of face, clean-shaven, finely cut, exquis- 
itely modelled, with a veil of long and wonderful hair faUing 
on either side of the face, or whether it be the hard, strong, 
determined features of the Puritan, with a rigid simphcity 
of buttoned jerkin and white collar, the painter was equally 
at home, and presented the man to the very life. All 
that was good in a face received ample justice and the 


nobler emotions usually ruled with him. A peculiar 
contrast in this way may be noted in two portraits in the 
Pierpont Morgan collection : one, the exquisite face of 
the ill-fated Duke of Monmouth, with every sign of vacilla- 
tion, a weak mouth and a general air of voluptuousness and 
self-indulgence ; the other showing the tremendous stem 
characteristics of John, Lord Loudoun, as set out in a fine 
miniature that was discovered behind some panelling in 
Loudoun Castle, and possesses all its colours fresh as they 
were first painted. 

Cooper, it is said, used to declare that he could not 
paint hands, and it certainly is noteworthy that in the very 
few large miniatures he executed, the hands are the least 
satisfactory part, and in some he has endeavoured to hide 
them out of sight altogether. His largest portrait is 
perhaps the famous one of Charles IL, belonging to the Duke 
of Richmond and Gordon. In this there are no signs of 
the hands, but in a somewhat similar portrait of the same 
King, equally large, one hand can be seen, and that un- 
doubtedly is somewhat clawhke and inaccurately drawn. 
There is an unsatisfactory hand also in the portrait of 
Margaret Lemon in fancy costume, which Cooper drew, 
and which was at one time in the possession of Mr. Pfungst, 
and although the hands in the portrait of the Earl of Shaftes- 
bury in the Victoria and Albert Museum are perhaps more 
satisfactory, it is yet clear that, even in these instances. 
Cooper has devoted far greater attention to the faces, and 
even to the costume, than he has to the hands. 

It must not be supposed by what has just been written 
that I attach little importance to Cooper's portraits of 
women. These indeed, are undoubtedly remarkable 
and full of extraordinary charm, but yet not so startling 
in their magnificence as are those of the men, nor 
do they show quite the same insight into character which 
is noteworthy in the men's portraits. Moreover, 
the majority of his portraits of women are not 


Plate XIV. 

(ob. 1672). 

Jane Myddleton (1645-1692). 

In the Collection of Earl Beauchamp, K.G. 

Abraham Cowley (1618-1667). Signed and dated 1J53. 
In the Collection of the Duke of Portland, K.G. 

PI, ATI-; XI\' 


in quite so good a condition as are the men's portraits. 
They have had more carnation used in them, and this 
madder lake, as is its habit, has faded, so that we do not 
see his women's portraits quite in the condition that we 
see those of the men. It would also appear that Cooper 
was not given to flattery, and as many of the women of that 
day had been marked by smallpox and other ravages upon 
their beauty, we do not retain so fine an idea of their charm 
as might otherwise be the case. It must be borne in mind, 
as well, that the standard of feminine beauty changes from 
period to period, and that comparatively few of the beauties 
of the court of Charles II. whom Cooper painted would 
now be regarded as being specially lovely women ; their 
charm, in all probability, consisting more in expression, 
in piquancy and in wit than in actual physical beauty. 

Cooper's miniatures as a rule are signed by his initials, 
sometimes the two letters set side by side, and other times 
conjoined in monogram form. Many of them are dated, 
and usually both the monogram and the dates are painted 
in gold. The characteristic of the painter's work lies in 
its broad, strong brush-work, and some of his most wonder- 
ful miniatures are those in which the face is surrounded 
with a wealth of long hair, which itself is represented with 
marvellous dexterity, each single line seeming to be separ- 
ate from that preceding it. Almost all the faces are serious 
and grave, wellnigh to the point of sternness ; even those 
of the cavahers whom Cooper so cleverly represented are 
by no means cheerful. The impress of that Puritan life 
which in his time was crushing out so many of the joys of 
existence, and which bore in especial fashion so heavily 
upon the women of the day, was very clearly marked upon 
all Cooper's portraits. He made use of a peculiar brick- 
dusty ruddy red in his countenances, but it is seldom that 
this colour can be seen in its full strength. Only a few of 
his miniatures have been really shut away in cases and care- 
fully guarded, but from those few we are able to realise 


how extraordinarily fine his colouring must have been when 
the miniatures were first executed. 

It will be well that any collector in purchasing a minia- 
ture reputed to be by Samuel Cooper should take parti- 
cular care in examining the date. Tliere are in existence 
two miniatures, both purporting to be his work, and 
both dated after his decease. In both these examples, 
it is clear that the majority of the work of the miniature 
was actually by Samuel Cooper himself, but some damage 
has happened to the portraits, and they have been skilfully 
repaired by an artist who was not aware of the date of 
Cooper's decease. He has copied the figures of the date, 
to the best of his abihty, and with an unfortunate result. 
One of the portraits, representing Lord Shaftesbury, was 
an extremely fine miniature, and but for this unfortunate 
correction and alteration, would have been a very precious 
one. As it is, however, it is ruined as a work of historical 
importance, because the date it bears is impossible, and 
we have no knowledge as to the actual date. There have 
been many miniatures by Cooper sold in recent days which 
have been touched up, and these should be carefully avoided 
as their value has been seriously reduced b3^ such additions. 

Alexander Cooper was Samuel's elder brother, but his 
work is not so important, and the best examples of it 
are to be sought for out of England. The most notable 
of all is a series of miniatures representing Frederick V. 
the Elector Palatine and his family, in Berlin. It was for 
a while amongst the private possessions of the German 
Emperor, but later on was ceded to the Kaiser Friedrich 
Museum. From this series there are three portraits 
missing, those of Prince Gustavus, Prince Edward, and 
Princess Sophia. The latter would have been specially 
interesting to Englishmen, as she was the ancestress of the 
Hanoverian sovereigns, and thus of the dynasty that now 
occupies the throne of England. The empty places for 
these three missing portraits still exist, and the whole 


series forms twelve circular discs, which fold one over the 
other, and when folded together, are a Uttle pile about 
a couple of inches high. The top and bottom discs bear 
the royal crown and monogram and the date 1633, and on 
each disc in black and white enamel, are the name and age 
of the person whose portrait is,or should be, contained in the 
disc, and also the record when the portrait was painted. 
The eldest, Charles, was painted on December 22nd, 1632, 
when he was fourteen ; Prince Rupert was painted when he 
was twelve ; his brother Maurice, equally distinguished in the 
Enghsh CivU Wars, was eleven; Philip, who was killed in 
battle in Germany, was five ; Elizabeth, the friend of 
William Penn, was painted when she was thirteen ; Louisa, 
afterwards Abbess of Maubisson, was ten, and Henrietta, 
afterwards Princess of Transylvania, painted on July 7th, 
1632, when the little girl was but six. Of the three missing 
portraits. Prince Edward was painted when he was eight. 
Princess Sophia when two, and Prince Gustavus in the first 
year of his age. 

At the time when this delightful series of portraits was 
executed, Alexander Cooper was resident in the Hague, 
and was a frequent visitor at the lodging of the " Queen 
of Hearts." Shortly after that, we believe that he was in 
England, because there is a miniature by him, in the 
possession of the Queen of Holland, representing James II. 
as a young lad which must surely have been painted about 
1647, and then either in this country, or possibly when 
James was on a visit to Scandinavia. At about that time, 
Alexander Cooper went to Stockholm, and became portrait 
painter to Queen Christina, for whom he executed a great 
many miniatures. When in Scandinavia, some years ago, 
I was able to discover many documents relative to this 
artist, which are set out in a special article concerning him 
in the Nineteenth Century for October, 1905, and there is 
reproduced in that article a receipt in his own handwriting, 
which is almost the only piece of his writing known to 


Plate XV. 

{ob. 1660). 

A Lady, name unknown. Signed. 

A Lady, name unknown. Signed. 

A Man, name unknown, husband of the lady whose portrait is 
opposite to his. Signed. 

All three in the Collection of the Queen of Holland. 

Gustavus Adolphus (ob 1632). Signed. 

In the Gothenburg Museum, given to the ancestors of the 
General who presented it to the Museum ; by the King 



exist. From these documents we gather that Alexander 
had another name, that of Abraham, but he dropped the 
second name and signed himself as Alexander Cooper, 
and on his miniatures " A. C." Furthermore, certain of 
these documents alluded to him as the Jew portrait painter. 
Whether because his name was Abraham or whether there 
was actually Jewish blood in his veins we have no means 
of knowing, but it is clear, from the way in which he was 
employed at the Swedish Court, that his Jewish parentage, 
if it existed, did not interfere with his success. 

He was not treated in satisfactory fashion by the Swedish 
Court. He had to appeal to various officials for the pay- 
ment of his salary, and a pathetic letter written when he 
was ill and confined to his bed and in great need of money, 
is still in existence, and addressed by him to Count Magnus 
Gabriel de la Gardie, praying that he might be given the 
money that was due to him. He appears to have left 
Sweden in 1656 for a while, and to have carried out some 
work in Denmark. In the following year, however, he 
was back in Stockholm, and there resided during the remain- 
ing three years of his life. It is probable that his death 
occurred as the result of some sudden illness, which over- 
took him while he was engaged in his professional work, 
because the record of his decease, which occurred in 1660, 
declared in pathetic language that he died " at his rooms 
in the inner quarter of the city, alone, while at work, and 
with his brush in his hand." There are a few other docu- 
ments relative to Alexander Cooper, which are quoted by 
Mr. Foster in his work on Samuel Cooper already referred 
to. Two of his paintings are in the possession of the Queen 
of Holland and are depicted in colour in the Httle book 
recently prepared by Monsieur Fritz Lugt on that collec- 
tion. Unfortunately, however, it is not known who either 
of them represents. Another anonymous miniature signed 
by Alexander Cooper is in the possession of the Duke of 
Buccleuch ; a fine one is illustrated in Lemberger's book 


on Scandinavian miniatures, and an important portrait of 
the Prince Palatine is in the collection of Mr. Whitcombe 

Alexander Cooper appears also to have been a skilful 
painter in enamel, and this information has come to hght 
within the last few years. Queen Christina's correspondence 
with Paolo Giordano Orsini II., Duke of Bracciano, after 
having been inaccessible to scholars for many years, has 
been purchased by the City of Rome, and Baron de Bildt, 
the Swedish Minister, who is the principal authority in 
Europe on the history of Queen Christina, discovered 
amongst the letters, allusions to gifts made by the Queen 
to the Duke, of miniatures and an enamel by Alexander 
Cooper. Two of the portraits that the Queen sent were of 
herself, one in ordinary costume, and one in Coronation 
robes, and another was a copy of a picture of Titian in 
her possession. This seems to have been in enamel. We 
also learn from some papers preserved in Sweden that 
Cooper painted several portraits of Charles X., who suc- 
ceeded Queen Christina, and that these were set in dia- 
monds, and given to various ambassadors, notably to the 
French Ambassador, to the Danish, and to the Swedish 
Ambassador in Russia. Probably one of these was sent 
to Italy, because, quite recently, it has been discovered 
in Rome, set in a diamond etui, and signed and dated by 
Alexander Cooper. Another portrait of the same King is in 
the Gothenburg Museum, and he is represented in armour, 
wearing the sash of an Order. This was presented to the 
Museum by the descendants of the General to whose ances- 
tors it had been given b}' the King himself. Of the portraits 
of Queen Christina painted by Alexander Cooper I have not 
been able to trace a single example, although it is quite 
clear from the documents that many of them were executed. 
One portrait of her, however, painted in oil on copper, was 
lent by a Mr. Henry Holt to the exhibition at South Ken- 
sington in 1865, and again to Leeds in 1868. I have not 


been able to find it, and I am gravely doubtful as to whether 
it was Cooper's work at all, as we have no evidence that 
he ever painted in oil or on copper, but all his known 
miniatures are in water-colour. 



1HAVE called the period after the time of Samuel 
Cooper, until the great revival of miniature painting 
in the eighteenth century, which was occasioned 
by the institution of the Royal Academy, the Interreg- 
num, because, during that time, there lived no great 
master of miniature painting — no one who could in any 
way compete with Samuel Cooper, nor any who could take 
such a position as was afterwards assumed by the greater 
eighteenth-century men, such as Cosway, Engleheart, 
Smart, Plimer and Humphry. This is not to say, however, 
that the period was an unimportant one, or even that 
there were no eminent exponents of the art during the time 
that it covered. It was not so. There were a multitude 
of miniature painters between the time of Charles II. and 
that of George III. : some of them almost in the front 
rank ; in fact, it is rather a question as to whether one man, 
Flatman, was not actually amongst the foremost when at 
his best, and another, Lawrence Crosse, in his own particu- 
lar aspect, and at his own period, was at least equal in 
merit to many of those who had preceded him. A great 
part of the period is distinctly under the influence of Sir 
Peter Lely, and many of the miniaturists cf that time were 
actually his pupils, notably Flatman, Sadler, Greenhill, 
Mary Beale and probably Charles Beale, and perhaps 
even others, about whom we cannot be quite so certain. 
The man who succeeded Cooper in popular estimation, 
and who was certainh' admitted and sworn as the King's 



Limner after Cooper's decease, that is to say, in about 
1673, was Nicholas Dixon, and Mr. Goulding has discovered 
a document regarding an order to the cofferer of the royal 
household for ;r200 per annum to be paid quarterly to this 
man, in lieu of diet or board wages, who, the document 
says, " having been lately admitted and sworn King's 
Limner loco Samuel Cooper, deceased." Dixon appears 
to have taken this salary, so Mr. Goulding tells us, for 
some few years, the latest receipt to come under his notice 
being one for 1678. Then there probably ensued some 
financial difficulty, because Dixon, who was at that moment 
li\'ing in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, mortgaged 
to John Holies, Duke of Newcastle, his limnings, seventy 
in number, on November 23rd, 1700, for the sum of £430. 
It seems probable that this money, or certainly the greater 
part of it, was never repaid by Dixon, because there are 
at least thirty of these limnings at Welbeck Abbey now, 
whence they came from the Duke of Newcastle to his 
daughter the Countess of Oxford, and to her daughter 
the Duchess of Portland. The mortgage is referred to by 
George Vertue in his MSS., in which he says that the whole 
collection of engravings, and limnings, most of which were 
large miniature copies, on vellum, after paintings by the 
old masters, were disposed of and bought by, and in the 
possession of, the Duke of Newcastle, and Vertue speaks 
of the painter as being in high reputation in the time of 
Charles II., in that of James II., and in the beginning of 
the reign of William. We do not know exactly when Dixon 
died, Vertue only telling us that this transaction took 
place a little before he died, and implying that he was 
in very bad health at the time the transfer occurred. As 
to what has become of the remainder of the seventy 
limnings that the Duke of Newcastle at one time possessed, 
it is impossible to say. Several notable collections own 
works by Dixon, and one, which is in the Pierpont Morgan 
collection, is a copy of an old picture ; the others probably 


Plate XVI. 



The Interregnum. 

I. A Lady and Child. 

Collection of the Earl Spencer, K.G. 

s. Lady Crisp. Signed. 

Collection of Mrs. Sotheby. 



still exist, and have not yet been attributed to the artists 
who painted them. 

The collector will find a little puzzle awaiting his solu- 
tion with regard to these very miniatures, as Mr. Goulding 
is inclined to think that one or two of the portraits which 
are usually given to Dixon, notably a whole length repre- 
sentation of the Duke of Grafton in the Duke of Buccleuch's 
collection, dated 1676, were perchance the work of another 
painter. He reads the initials which form this signature 
as " D.M." instead of " D.N.," and thinks that the first 
and second strokes of the " M " are identical \vith those 
of the " D." He finds the same curious type of signature 
on a work belonging to Lord North, preserved at Wroxton 
Abbey, and also on a fine one which was sold at Christie's 
a year or two ago, after the decease of its owner, Mr. 
Pfungst. We have, however, no knowledge at the pre- 
sent time of any artist whose name began with " M." 
and whom we could suggest to accord with these 
initials. We are therefore rather more inclined to accept 
them as the work of Nicholas Dixon, and to wonder if he 
was perhaps trying to make a monogram of a possible 
middle name, or whether it was an unusual form of putting 
together the " M " and the " D." In either of the cases 
referred to by Mr. Goulding, the signature is not very clear, 
and it may almost equally represent " N.D." or " M.D." 
There are several of Dixon's miniatures, however, quite 
definitely signed " N.D.," one, for example, belonging to 
Lord Exeter, another to Lord Carlisle, a third in the Pier- 
pont Morgan collection, and two or three in that of the 
Duke of Buccleuch. The work is broad and free and easy, 
and it certainly resembles that of Cooper in many respects. 

Another difticulty arises in connection with the minia- 
ture painters named Cleyn. We know about the father, 
Francis, who was connected with the Royal tapestry 
works at Mortlake, and both Vertue and Evelyn speak of 
his children who were miniature painters. There is also 


some evidence that he had a daughter named Penelope, 
and miniatures signed " P.C." are usually accepted 
as being her work, but the collector must hesitate 
in making such an attribution definitely, because there 
was an artist named Paolo Carrandini who also signed 
" P.C," and, moreover, there was Penelope Cotes, but she 
belonged to a different period, and is therefore not very 
likely to be confused with the two former persons ; who 
signed in the same manner. Penelope Cleyn had two 
brothers, Charles and John, and works by each of them are 
known to exist, signed with the initials, monogram fashion, 
as a rule, in gold. We are not clear about the history of 
Paolo Carrandini, and it has not at present been settled, 
with anything like precision, as to whether the miniatures 
signed by " P.C." are to be given to one or the other 
painter. There is a touchstone in existence, because, 
in the possession of Messrs. Parsons of Brompton Road, 
there was, some few years ago, a portrait of Mary of Modena 
which was signed in full by Carrandini and dated ; but 
to make the matter even more complex, this portrait bore 
a striking resemblance in technique to another, which had 
always been attributed, and with some evidence in the way 
of family tradition, to Penelope Clejoi. Charles Cleyn 
signed with double " C's " interlaced, and the works 
executed by him and by his brother were almost always 
on vellum, and there are frequently quaint landscape 
backgrounds to be seen, sometimes a comer of a formal 
garden, with a fragment of statuary ; while another 
notable point is the extraordinary pallor of the faces in the 
miniatures executed by these two brothers. Tradition 
says of Carrandini that he lived but a very few years, that 
he came over v^dth Mary of Modena, that his miniatures 
all represent persons of her court, and that he died suddenly 
from the effects of poison in 1679 ; but we have no docu- 
ments at present discovered to support either of these 
statements, and, in fact, we are inclined to believe that he 


was in England prior to the time when Mary of Modena 
reached our shores. 

Another interesting man was Balthazar Gerbier, who was 
an architect and painter to the Duke of Buckingham, and 
afterwards to Charles I., by whom he was knighted. 
Amongst the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum is a 
letter from the Duchess of Buckingham, who writes to her 
husband, then in Spain, and says, " I pray you, if you have 
any idle time, sit to Gerbier for your picture, that I may 
have it well done in little." There was an extremely fine 
drawing by him in the Wellesley collection, representing a 
gentleman whose name is unknown, and who was painted 
at the age of twenty-two. It is signed and dated 1616, 
and one ought to be able to identify the sitter, because his 
arms are quite clearly displayed upon the portrait. One 
of Gerbier's finest miniatures is in the possession of the 
Queen of Holland, and is illustrated in colour in the little 
book that has been written by Mr. Lugt on that collection. 
It represents Prince Maurice, and was drawn in the same 
year as the Wellesley portrait on vellum was prepared. 
There is also another portrait dated at that time, repre- 
senting Prince Charles, afterwards Charles I., and there is 
a portrait of Frederick V. in existence, by Gerbier, and 
one of Henry, Duke of Gloucester, adorns the Pierpont 
Morgan collection. Yet another belongs to the Duke of 
Northumberland and represents the Duke of Buckingham. 
It may quite well be the very one alluded to above. 
There is also one in the Rijks Museum representing a 
Swedish diplomatist, and Dr. Staring knows that there 
existed at one time two other works by this same artist. 
Beyond these, I have not been able to trace with 
certainty anything by the hand of this painter. He 
had a great sense of colour, and a particular love for 
representing gold on scarlet, or orange, and when this was 
presented with a deep blue background, the result was 
somewhat magnificent. It seems clear that Gerbier was 


Plate XVII. 


Sir Edward Spragge (?) {ob. 1673). By Lawrence Crosse 
(c. 1650-1724). 

Collection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, 

Sir Godfrey Kneller (1646-1723). By Susan Penelope Gibson 
(Mrs. Rosse). 

In the Collection of the Duke of Portland, K.G. 

Alexander Pope (1688-1744). By Bernard Lens (1682-1740). 

From the Strawberry Hill Collection. 



a man who had his own ideas of colouring, and who was 
not afraid of them. 

Then, we must not forget Richard Gibson, who, accord- 
ing to Walpole, taught Queen Anne to draw, and went to 
Holland to instruct her sister, the Princess of Orange, 
afterwards Queen Mary, and Sanderson, in the " Graphice," 
1658, a work to which allusion has already been made, 
refers to a portrait by Gibson, and speaks of its being done 
" with elaborate and yet accurate neatness as may be a 
masterpiece to posterity." He is frequently known as 
Dwarf Gibson. He, again, was extraordinarily well repre- 
sented in the Wellesley collection, by a drawing of his own 
portrait, signed, and dated 1690. It is a beautiful work, in 
crayon, which was, at one time, in the Tart Hall collection, 
so Walpole tells us, and afterwards came into the possession 
of Sir Thomas Lawrence, who valued it very highly. It is 
now in the National Portrait Gallery. 

Gibson appears to have had a nephew, one William 
Gibson, another of Lely's pupils, whom Walpole mentions, 
and he had a daughter, Susanna, perhaps Susanna Pene- 
lope, who became the wife of a Mr. Ross or Rose, who was 
a jeweller. Vertue tells us that there were several works 
by her, and says that she signed them " S.P.R." I must 
confess that I have never seen a miniature signed with 
these three initials, unless they are conjoined in such a 
way that I have not recognised them, but I have seen one 
signed " S.R.," which I attribute to her, and I have always 
declared that a number of miniatures with a pocket-book, 
exhibited at the Victoria and Albert Museum, and attri- 
buted to quite another artist, were by Mrs. Ross, on evidence 
connected with the handwriting on their reverse, and sup- 
ported by the statement that one of them is distinctly 
described by the artist as representing " my father, Rosse." 
In this opinion, I am supported by Mr. Richard Goulding, 
who has given considerable attention to these miniatures ; 
but the question is by no means settled, because Mr. 


Kennedy, who has written about the Bucclcuch portraits, 
is not disposed to accept the attribution, and does not 
consider that the writing at the back of the Victoria and 
Albert Museum portraits is identical with that which 
ascribed a drawing of the Duke of Monmouth as a child 
to Mrs. Ross. He maintains that the vellum on which this 
particular portrait is painted is not older than the nine- 
teenth century, but we are not all of us inclined to accept 
even that statement, and although a Mrs. Ross, who died in 
1821, is said to have existed, yet we have no evidence what- 
ever as to who she was, or where she lived or died. Nor is 
she mentioned in any of the standard dictionaries. More- 
over, the statement on the back of the Buccleuch minia- 
ture which reads " Duke Montmouth, after Mr. Cooper 
per Mrs. Ross " is not in the least nineteenth-century 
style, and although it may frankly be confessed that the 
handwritings are not very similar, yet the inscription on 
the Buccleuch miniature may not necessaril}' have been in 
the artist's own handwriting, and looks indeed more like 
a statement of what the miniature is, than a signature, 
and if so, may have been the work of some one other than 
the aitist. We do know of the existence of Gibson's 
daughter, Mrs. Ross ; we have no evidence of the existence 
of any other Mrs. Ross ; we know very little about the 
age of vellum, and therefore the problem has not yet been 
solved. As a rule, Vertue's opinion may be accepted with a 
good deal of confidence, but the remarks he makes in his 
MSS. concerning Dixon, Penelope Cleyn and Mrs. Ross are 
certainly rather bewildering, and we still await further evi- 
dence for a definite conclusion about either of these artists . 
A remarkable piece of evidence has, however, recently 
come to light which helps to corroborate to a marked degree 
the theory just set out. It appears that one of the miniatures 
of the series is described as beiiig the portrait of a Mrs. 
Van Vryberghe. A Dutch gentleman who was recently 
visiting England, a Dr. Staring, has been able to give the 


information that Mrs. Van Vryberghe, with whose name 
and history he is very famihar, was a Miss Gibson, a daugh- 
ter of Gibson the artist, and that she had a sister, one Mrs. 
Ross or Rosse. This further information, I am disposed 
to think, really settles the question. 

Gibson's own signed work is very unusual, but there is a 
fine portrait of Lady Anne Carr, in the possession of Lord 
Beauchamp, which is signed, and another work, repre- 
senting Lord Ogle, is at Welbeck. One of the best he ever 
painted is a portrait of Lady Carnarvon, a large one, clearly 
signed on the obverse, and the signature, curiously enough, 
very closely resembles the writing said to be that of Mrs. 
Ross, which is on the back of the miniatures at the Victoria 
and Albert Museum. 

Then there is a miniature painter, who signed " S.F." 
or " F.S." His miniatures have at one time been attri- 
buted to Francis Cleyn, the father of Penelope, but the 
second initial is clearly an " S "and not a " C," and therefore 
the tradition does not help us very far. There was a 
painter named Sadler, who has been mentioned in con- 
nection with them, but the general opinion about him was 
that his name was Thomas. There is a drawing in existence 
by Faithorne, undoubtedly the work of that artist, which 
is signed, not " W.F." as one would expect, but " G.F.," 
the name having been Latinised, and it is just a possible 
thing that some similar explanation may help us to deter- 
mine the identity of miniatures signed " M.D." or " D.M." 
and " S.F." or " F.S." 

Flatman deserves more attention. At his best, he was 
a good painter, not, perhaps, an inspired one, but sound 
and excellent. He had a somewhat curious career. A 
Londoner, he was bom in Aldersgate Street in 1637. He 
was at Winchester, and then a scholar, afterwards a 
Fellow, of New College, Oxford, and in 1657 he entered 
the Inner Temple, having left Oxford, so the University 
records tell us, without a degree. At that time, however. 


so I have recently been informed, New College, unique 
amongst the various colleges, possessed the'power of grant- 
ing a degree irrespective of the University, and these 
degrees are not recorded in the University records. In 
1666 Flatman took his Master's degree in Cambridge, 
and the documents tell us it was given to him by King's 
letters, he being already a B.A. of Oxford. This statement, 
which appears to contradict the University books, may 
perhaps be explained by reason of that special privilege 
which New College then possessed. Flatman became a 
barrister, but interested himself in painting, and then in 
poetry. He declared himself as one who had no sj-mpathy 
for women, and who was determined to live a bachelor, 
but in 1672 he met a lady, who is declared as " a fair virgin 
of some fortune," and he forthwith married her, bought 
an estate near Diss, and there settled down. He died, 
however, in St. Bride's parish, in 1688, and is buried in that 
church. One of the best miniatures that he ever painted 
represents Mr. (Edward?) Gregory, Clerk of the Cheque 
at Chatham, a man who is frequently mentioned by Pepys. 
There are several Gregorys alluded to in Pepys' Diar\', 
and it is clear that not all the references can be to the same 
man : one, who is mentioned in 1666, must evidently be 
Henry Gregory, a member of the King's band ; another, 
called " an understanding gentleman," is not, I am disposed 
to think, the person represented in the miniature, but 
our Edward Gregory is probably Pepys' old acquaintance 
whom he met at the Maypole in the Strand, at Marsh's in 
WTiitehall, at the Dolphin, and at the Crown at Rochester, 
and with whom, on each occasion, he had a drink and a long 
talk. Oddly enough, there was a second Gregory' who was 
Clerk of the Cheque at Chatham, one Jeremiah, but the 
man represented on the portrait painted by Flatman, which 
belongs to Mr. Frederick Wallop, and was one night, by his 
kind permission, exhibited at the Samuel Pepys Club, is 
probably a portrait of Edward Gregory. 


Flatman's memory is preserved to us four rhyming 
lines, which alluded to his skill in the three arts of law, 
poetry and painting : 

" Should Flatman for his clients strain the laws. 
The painter gives some colour to the cause. 
Should critics censure what the poet writ, 
The pleader quits him at the bar of Wit." 

Flatman's miniatures are usually signed with a tiny 
" F " ; there is sometimes a " T " conjoined with it, but one 
needs to look exceedingly closely at the monogram to 
distinguish the upper part of the " T." 

Another artist not to be forgotten is David des Granges, 
who, it has been ascertained, was the son of Samson des 
Granges, a native of Guernsey, was bom in London, 
baptized at the French Church, in Threadneedle Street, 
on May 24th, 1611, and was with Charles II., as his limner, 
in Scotland, in 1651. Mr. Goulding has discovered, in the 
Public Record Office, an application from Des Granges 
to the King some twenty years later, saying that there 
was due to him £']^, and that out of that sum he had only 
received 40s. and £4, that he was then old and infirm, that 
his sight and labour were failing him, so that in consequence 
he was disabled from getting " subsistence or livelihood for 
himself and his children," and that he had to " rely upon 
charity." In his petition he prays the King to relieve the 
present necessities of himself and his miserable children, 
and there is a note signed by the Master of Requests, dated 
November nth, 1671, saying that the Commissioners of 
the Treasury will take speedy and effectual course for 
making payment. The schedule attached to the petition 
describes the thirteen limnings Des Granges carried out, 
and in it the claim is for £']2. A portrait of Charles II., 
the work of Des Granges, and dated 165 1, is believed to 
have been one of these mentioned in this schedule, 
and is in the possession of Mrs. Lee, at Hartwell House. 


His works are to be seen in the Royal collection, at 
Ham House. Madresfield Court, Wroxton Abbey, and in 
other collections. They are generally signed with the 
three initials " D.D.G." and sometimes but not always 
are dated. They are frequently painted upon a brown 
ground, although one at Windsor is on a blue ground, 
and another on a background of blue and white 
clouds, with some trees. Des Granges again seems to have 
had a rather unusual career, because, although it is clear 
that he was baptized in the Huguenot Church, and was 
acquainted with George Heriot, of Edinburgh, James I.'s 
jeweller, who was a man of similar faith, yet Des Granges 
did not continue in the Huguenot Church, but is referred to 
in 1649 ^y some French Dominicans, as " a worthy devout 
member of our Order " (probably a Tertiary), and as having 
been sent over to France to obtain some information respect- 
ing the Order, and the sittings for some portraits. The 
papers belonging to Inigo Jones mention Des Granges more 
than once, and in such fashion as would infer that they were 
personal friends. Certainly, one of the best miniatures 
that Des Granges ever painted is the portrait which he 
executed of Inigo Jones. It is now at Welbeck Abbey, 
with a repetition of it in the collection of the Duke 
of Devonshire. The age of Jones is inscribed on the por- 
trait as being sixtj'-eight, and the work is a delightful one, 
while it is quite possible that the fact of both the artist 
and the architect being Catholics may have been a link 
which first of all brought them together. In any case, 
this portrait in a very interesting fashion links together 
two notable men. Des Granges died in 1675, and it should 
be mentioned that he was also a painter in oil colours, and 
is referred to as such by Sanderson ; while, at Mottisfont 
Abbey, in Hampshire, there Wcis quite a large group, repre- 
senting a lady and child, signed by him in full, and dated 
1661. Two of his best portraits are in the Rijks Museum 
at Amsterdam. 


There were two, if not three, of the Beales. Mary Beale, 
who was a Miss Cradocke, was on very friendly terms with 
Lely, frequented his studio, watched him at work, and ap- 
parently used to obtain commissions for him, and persuade 
her friends to sit to the great artist. Of her husband 
Charles we know little, save that he held some appoint- 
ment under the Board of Green Cloth, and is declared to 
have been a clever chemist, and skilful in the composition 
of certain pigments which were used by Lely and by the 
other artists of the day ; but we are specially grateful to 
Beale for the diaries he kept and for the information that 
they contain respecting his wife's work. At one time, there 
must have been thirty of these volumes in existence, but 
there is only one now available, that for 1681, which is 
preserved in the National Portrait Gallery Library. Vertue 
made considerable use of these diaries from 1672, and in 
consequence, from his papers, we obtain information re- 
specting the work that Mrs. Beale (Dearest Hearte, as her 
husband called her in them) carried out, and the prices she 
obtained for her pictures. She was an able portrait painter, 
and had an extensive clientele, largely, says Mr. Collins 
Baker, episcopal, or at least clerical, and she painted a con- 
siderable number of repetitions of Lely's works, some of 
which, at different times, have been assumed to be the 
works of the greater artist. She, like her husband, was 
interested in chemistry, and made many experiments and 
much research into the preparation of the pigments which 
she used ; she also tried different kinds of canvases. She 
was skilful in drawing, and one at least of her own portraits 
is in my own collection, a clever, almost surprising 
piece of skilful portraiture. The majority of her larger 
portraits are a little dull, and commonplace, and that 
characteristic must be applied to her miniatures, which 
have no special feature to make them important. 

Her son Charles painted better, as regards limnings, than 
she did. He was educated by Flatman, and painted both in 


Plate XVIII. 

1. Henry Somerset, first Duke of Beaufort. By Mary Beale. 

Signed and dated 1674. 

2. The Duchess of Buckingham. By Charles Beale (Fl. 1660- 

1688). Signed. 
Both in the Collection of the Earl Beauchamp, K.G, 



oil and in water-colour, but suffered from weakness of the 
eyes, and in consequence renounced work in 1689. 
There are several of his studies, in red chalk, for 
portraits in the British Museum, there are three important 
miniatures by him belonging to Earl Beauchamp, and 
others in the Victoria and Albert Museum, in the Duke of 
Buccleuch's collection, in the Royal collection and in those 
of the Duke of Newcastle and the Marquess of Exeter. 

His brother, Bartholomew, is also said to have painted 
miniatures, but, after a few years, he gave up the pursuit 
of art, and decided to take up that of medicine, 
studying under Dr. Sydenham, and eventually setting up 
in his profession at Coventry. None of the Beales' 
miniatures are of very common occurrence. Mary 
Beale seems to have painted many portraits in certain 
families, and she occasionally produced limnings for the 
same people for whom she executed large portraits. Charles 
Beale does not seem to have practised for very long, Bartho- 
lomew for a far shorter period, and I know of no miniature 
by the latter artist about which I can be positive. I have 
seen one, which appears to be signed with a conjoined 
double " B," and v/hich was certainly like the work of 
Mary Beale, and may have been perhaps executed by her 
son, Bartholomew. 

Mrs. Beale died in Pall Mall about 1704, according to 
one account, but according to a more probable one, her 
death took place in 1697, and Walpole tells us that she 
was buried under the Communion Table in St. James's 
Church, but this appears to be an incorrect statement. 

The Cradockes were closely connected with the family 
of George Fleetwood, the regicide, and possessed a portrait 
of him by Samuel Cooper, in a blue enamel and gold frame. 
This still exists and belongs to Mr. Gory Milner-Gibson- 
Cullum, who is the most recent and most accurate writer ^ 

* See a paper by Mr. G. Milner-Gibson-Cullum in the Proceed- 
ings of the Suffolk Arch. Soc, xvi. 3, 1918. 


upon Mary Bealc. It came to him direct from Honoria 

It would be quite impossible, within the space occupied 
by this small book, to refer to all the painters of por- 
traits in miniature, but there are one or two men belong- 
ing to the early part of the eighteenth century who must 
on no account be overlooked. The chief, perhaps, amongst 
them, is the man whom Walpole styles " Lewis " Crosse, 
but who appears really to have been called Lawrence 
Crosse, and who possesses a double interest. He was 
not merely a painter of miniatures, but he was also a col- 
lector, and he got together a great many miniatures by 
Oliver, Hoskins, and Cooper. Walpole refers to them, and 
tells us that the collection was sold, by Crosse himself, at 
his house, the Blue Anchor in Henrietta Street. The 
combination of the painter and the collector is not a very 
common one. It betokens the existence of private means, 
and also of a somewhat greater interest in the work of other 
painters which, if I dare say it, is not always a characteristic 
of artists. Crosse appears to have been a man of very 
broad-minded sympathy, and a really serious admirer 
of the art of miniature painting, so that he was able to 
bring together quite a substantial collection. It is men- 
tioned more than once in contemporaiy literature, \^'e do 
not, however, know for what cause he decided to sell, nor 
what sort of prices he obtained for his miniatures, and we are 
not even certain as to the spelling of his name. Vertue 
does not give the final " e," nor does Lens in the MS. which 
he wTote in 1729, and in which he refers to the painter, 
and the only two signed portraits with which we are 
acquainted are those which belong to the Duke of Port- 
land and to the Earl of Stamford, and they are inscribed 
by the artist on the reverse " L. Cross f." On the other 
hand, Walpole alwa3^s speaks of him as " Crosse," and the 
name appears to have been spelled in this fashion in some 
records that are in existence concerning him. Several of 


the miniatures which he collected were bought by Edward 
Lord Harley, in 1722, at Crosse's sale, and are now in the 
Welbeck Abbey collection. He is at the time of the sale 
declared to have been upwards of seventy years old, and 
Walpole tells us that he died in October, 1724. He also 
alludes to the personal resemblance that Crosse bore to 
Hoskins, and one wonders whether there was any family 
connection between the two men, and whether that may 
have accounted for the interest Crosse took in the art of 
miniature painting. His work is very different from that 
of his contemporaries, because it is almost covered with 
what Mr. Goulding calls " dot-like stipples." Some of 
his miniatures are really very beautiful, and the great 
wigs, which were characteristic of his time, are painted 
by him with extraordinary skill, while the lace ties that are 
seen below the chin are represented with extreme minute- 
ness of detail and remarkable skill. There are some 
particularly good examples of his work in the Duke of 
Buccleuch's collection, notably portraits of the Duke of 
St. Albans, the Earl of Dalkeith, one which is called Sir 
Edward Spragge, and a fine one of John Holies, Duke of 
Newcastle. In the same collection there are also portraits, 
by him, of the Duchess of Marlborough and of Mary Hyde, 
Baroness Conway. There are two beautiful examples of 
his work in the University Galleries at Oxford, representing 
Mr. Pitts and Mr. Danvers. He combined the two letters 
forming his initials in a very pleasing monogram, which is 
generally to be found written in gold. The other interest- 
ing circumstance connected with Crosse is the fact that 
he it was, who received instructions, from the then Marquess 
of Hamilton, to repair a damaged miniature of Mary, Queen 
of Scots, and he was ordered to make it as handsome as 
he could. " It seems," says Walpole, " that a round face 
was his idea of perfect beauty, but happened not to be 
Mary's sort of beauty." The actual miniature which 
Crosse repaired and touched up, was sold at Christie's in 


Plate XIX. 


Christopher Simpson (ob. 1669), violist and musical writer. By 
Thomas Flatman (1637 ?-i688). Signed. 

In the Collection of the Duke of^Portland, K.G. 

Prince Maurice of Orange and Nassau (i 567-1625). By Sir 
Balthazar Gerbier (1591-1667). Signed and dated 1619. 
In the Collection of the Queen of Holland. 

An Ecclesiastic, name unknown. An enamel by J. Petitot 
(1607-1691). Set in a frame made by Gilles Legare. 
In the Collection of the Countess of Dartrey. 



July, 1882, and the oval countenance of the unhappy 
Queen had been so entirely transformed that the portrait 
did not resemble Mary in the least degree. However, it 
was a pleasing head of a woman, in black velvet trimmed 
with ermine, and it was the original from which number- 
less copies have been made, and passed off as genuine 
portraits of Mary, Queen of Scots. 

The other miniature painter who deserves special atten- 
tion at this time was Bernard Lens, one of quite a number 
of artists bearing that name. There appear to have been 
three Bernards in succession. The first was the enamel 
painter, of whom ver^' little was known, and who died, so 
Walpole tells us, on February 5th, 1708, aged seventy- 
seven, and was buried in St. Bride's, leaving behind him 
four or five MS. volumes of " Collections on Divinitj^" which 
afterwards found a place in the library at Strawberry 
Hill. He had a son, the second Bernard, the mezzotint 
engraver, who was born in London, in 1659, ^.nd who pub- 
lished, in connection with Sturt (who engraved the illustra- 
tions to a wonderful Book of Common Prayer), a broadside 
prospectus of their drawing school in St. Paul's Church- 
yard, a copy of which is now to be seen in the British 
Museum. It set forth in florid style, the value and im- 
portance of drawing, and recommended engineers, mechan- 
ics and professional men to enter their names as pupils 
of the classes which were being carried on. A son of this 
second Bernard was Bernard Lens, the miniature painter, 
who was born in 1662, and died in 1740. He was an 
accomplished drawing master, no doubt trained at his 
father's school in St. Paul's Churchyard. Amongst other 
persons, he taught Horace Walpole himself, and he bears 
eloquent testimony in his pages to the " virtues and inte- 
grity of so good a man, as well as an excellent artist." Lens 
also taught the Duke of Cumberland and Princesses Mary 
and Louisa, and Mr. Goulding has found out that he 
taught Edward Harley, afterwards second Earl of Oxford, 


and in a letter referring to the classes, the latter states 
that Lens' fee was a guinea entrance, and half-a-cro\vn for 
an hour's instruction, and that he was prepared to " come 
two or three times in a week." He is, in this letter, spoken 
of as a " sober, diligent man, and very careful." He was 
drawing master at Christ's Hospital, and was the author of 
a " New Complete Drawing Book," which was not pub- 
lished until after his death ; it was a very popular work, 
and contains some sixty-two plates, etched by him, with 
full instructions for etching and for mezzotint work. After 
a while, he retired from the active exercise of his profession, 
and had two sales of the drawings, miniatures and pictures 
which he had collected. 

He had three sons. For the elder, Walpole secured an 
excellent position in his own office in the Exchequer, and 
the two younger, Andrew Benjamin Lens and Peter Paul 
Lens, were both skilful artists in miniature. The elder 
Lens possessed the delightful habit of putting inscrip- 
tions at the back of his miniatures. Many of them 
are very fuUy inscribed. He copied various portraits, 
specially works by Cooper, and was careful to note that 
they were his copies, and when he had executed them ; and 
on many of his miniature paintings he expressly stated 
where he had executed the work. There are two fine por- 
traits by him in existence, one in the collection at Welbeck 
Abbey, another in the University Galleries at Oxford, and 
on the last he has carefully recorded the setting of his own 
palette, and done it so well that one is able to identify the 
colours, and see what exceedingly good pigments he was 
in the habit of using. There are several of his works at 
Welbeck Abbey, and what is more, he carried out for his 
pupil, when he became Earl of Oxford, several commis- 
sions, both for painting special miniatures, and for framing, 
and Mr. Goulding has discovered many of his bills, having 
distinct reference to the work which he carried out, and 
notably to the frames which he designed and executed for 
his patron's portraits. 


The most notable point to make respecting Lens is 
that he appears to have been responsible for the introduc- 
tion of ivory as a suitable material on which miniatures 
might be painted. There are fifteen of his works on ivoi"y 
in the Welbeck collection, and there are eight in the col- 
lection at Ickworth Park belonging to the Marquess of 
Bristol, not all of them representing persons of Lens' own 
period, but many of them copies of other portraits, all 
well executed, with a certain amount of dignity, and care- 
fully inscribed on the reverse. He also seems to have 
altered a portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots, and to have 
copied a portrait of the same Sovereign. Mr. Goulding 
discovered that Lord Oxford introduced Lens to the Earl 
of Pomfret, that he might copy a picture concerning Mary, 
Queen of Scots, and Walpole speaks of his drawing the 
portrait of a lady in the dress that had been worn by Mary, 
Queen of Scots, and of her complaining that, although the 
costume resembled that of the unhappy Sovereign, Lens 
was not painting the lady, as she had desired to be painted, 
like the Queen. To this the artist seems to have made 
reply. " No, madam, if God Almighty had made your 
ladyship like her, I would." There are three dehghtful 
examples of the work of Lens in the possession of Lord 
Spencer, at Althorp, and there are others in the possession 
of the Duke of Devonshire, Earl Beauchamp and Earl 

Of Lens' two younger sons we do not know much . Andrew 
Benjamin Lens drew an exceedingly good portrait of Jacob 
Tonson, the publisher, and his portraits of himself, his wife 
and his daughter, purchased from his great-niece, are in 
my own possession. Peter Paul Lens painted an interest- 
ing portrait of his mother, which was in the Wellesley col- 
lection. He was an odd creature, a life member of a strange 
Irish club called " The Blasters," and Mr. Strickland tells 
us that he was declared a votary of the devil, and that 
warrants were issued in Ireland for his arrest on charges 


of blasphemy, that he escaped to England, and was not 

In the possession of the Newdegate-Newdigate family at 
Arbury, there were several works by Peter Paul Lens, 
miniatures and paintings in oil. He signed his works in 
two or three different ways, sometimes with a single " P," 
and sometimes with a double one, occasionally with a mono- 
gram composed of all three letters. When he died, the 
revival of the art in the early part of the eighteenth century 
was coming into pre-eminence, and to some of the lesser 
men who belonged to that revival, I shall have occasion 
to refer in a succeeding chapter. 



THE collector must be prepared to find not merely 
that every fine miniature of the eighteenth cen- 
tury is attributed to Cosway, but that a por- 
trait by Cosway is a rarity, and a thing very diihcult to 

During many years when miniatures were regarded as 
of but little account, the name of Cosway was the only 
one that had survived, and it was used indiscriminately. 

Plimer was practically unknown ; Engleheart fared 
little better ; Smart and GrimalcU had been quite over- 
looked ; but the beauty and charm of the work of Cosway, 
and the eccentricities of his much-advertised life, had 
caused his name to be remembered, and every old lady 
who had a miniature of her grandmother said it had 
certainly been painted by Cosway. It was really Dr. 
Propert and Mr. Jeffery Whitehead who revived the love 
of miniatures, and Dr. Propert was the first to investigate 
their history in his sumptuous book about them, published 
in 1887, and to produce definite information of value 
respecting them. 

Even he, knew hardly anything of Plimer, and but little 
of many of the others, and what he said of them was 
not always accurate. His notes concerning Cosway, 
although generally correct, do not go very far, and it 
has thus been left for those who followed him to search 



out the details concerning these painters, and to pubHsh 

It will be readily granted that, from their own special 
point of view, the miniatures by Cosway are the most 
wonderful creations of eighteenth-century miniature art. 

Those by Smart are greater works of art in that the 
modelling is more perfect, and the draughtsmanship more 
accurate and true. Miniatures by Engleheart are often 
grander in dignity and possess a more interesting colour 
scheme ; and there are other men, such as Hill and Ozias 
Humphry, Andrew Robertson and Grimaldi, who painted 
miniatures at times that are quite in the front rank ; 
but for all that, Cosway takes the premier place, even 
though his portraits are sometimes marked only by their 
dexterity and their brilliance. 

Cosway 's works have, as has been well said, " the 
excellencies as well as the defects of his age." 

Ozias Humphry said of him that he " inclined more to 
the neat, the graceful and the lovely, than towards the 
serene, the dignified and the stem " ; and this is a true 
criticism. Cosway's miniatures are not dignified portraits, 
and they are never stem, nor realistic, but they are always 
charming and graceful. 

He was really the first miniature painter who realised 
the beauties and advantages that lay in the use of ivony\ 
No one before Cosway had properly appreciated the charm 
of its brilliant surface, or the exquisite transparent effects 
that could be obtained upon it ; and once these advantages 
were accepted, he made use of them to the full. 

He was a very skilful, although not an accurate draughts- 
man, but a great part of the charm of his portraits lies 
in the exquisite fashion in which the picture is placed 
upon the ivory, like a bit of gossamer that has been blown 
into position, poised in the air and allowed to drop upon 
the ivory. In bmsh-work Cosway was marvellously 
dexterous, and his effects were attained with great rapidity ; 


but dexterity did not mean carelessness, and rapidity 
of action never implied thoughtless work. Brilliantly 
flippant much of his painting is, but strong in intention, 
exquisite in taste, and perfect in finish. Moreover, Cosway 
was almost the one artist of his day — Ozias Humphry 
being the only one who approached him, and he not of 
set intention — in realising the supreme merits of what 
may be termed an unfinished miniature, a sketch upon 
ivory in which the eyes and other leading features are 
completed in full portraiture, the hair put in in masses, 
but the draperies merely suggested, the tone of the ivory 
itself supplying all that was required in the high hghts, 
and being left in its natural charm to give the effect of 
the flesh. Except Humphry, no one but Cosway could, 
by a few clever strokes, cause this ivory to assume 
the roundness and dehcacy of the flesh, and by just 
drifting upon it, so to speak, a few perfect lines that 
depicted the eyes and mouth, nose and chin, could 
cause it to be transformed into a living portrait. It is 
difficult to describe in mere words the effect of this skill. 
Let the unfinished portraits of the Duchess of Devon- 
shire and Princess Amelia in the King's collection, 
and the one of Madame Du Barry in the J. P. 
Morgan collection, speak for themselves. All that was 
necessary has been given in these superb sketches — the 
likeness is there, complete in every way, but in 
economy of line and in amazing skill there was no one 
who could possibly rival the artist.^ 

Cosway worked almost invariably upon a clear blue and 
cloudy background, largely composed of a brilliant ultra- 
marine blue flecked with clouds of flake white and cream. 
This he adopted for almost all his finest works, and the 
colour of the blue is an almost sure mark of his handling. 
Another point to be borne in mind regards his treatment 

' One of the most beautiful Cosway miniatures in existence 
belongs now to Capt. H. W. Murray, of Winchester. 


Plate XX. 


George Prince of Wales, afterwards Prince Regent, in fancy dress. 
In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 

Henrietta Scott, afterwards Duchess of Portland. 
In the Collection of the Duke of Portland, K.G. 

Madame Du Barry (1746-1793). Painted in London in 1791. 
At one time in the possession of Miss Caroline Vernon, 
and later on of Col. G. A. Vernon, of Harefield. Now in 
the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 



of hair. It is never dry, wiry and hard, as is the hair 
painted by Phmer, nor is it so full of colour nor so rich as 
that in Engleheart's portraits, but it is drawn in masses, 
in wash ; rather than in lines, in detail ; and is hght, easy 
and free, with delicate lines, almost resembhng pencil 
drawn upon the wash-work: producing a delightful effect 
and one which, once recognised, is an unmistakable feature 
of the master's work. 

Something must be said of Cosway's career, and of that 
of his clever wife, who was equally well known with him 
in the social circles about the Prince Regent. 

Cosway was a Devonshire boy, bom probably at Okeford, 
near Bampton, in 1742, for there he was baptized in that 
year. His father was, at the time of his birth, headmaster 
of Blundell's School, Tiverton, and there Cosway was edu- 
cated and brought up. He seems to have been an only son, 
coming of a family originally Flemish, and some of his 
relatives owned considerable property in the town of 
Tiverton, one especially, who lived at Coombe- Willis and 
who possessed some good pictures, being a source of 
great attraction to the artist in his early school-days. 

His uncle, who was Mayor of the town, and his godfather, 
one Oliver Peard, a trader in the town, finding out his 
artistic abilities, persuaded the elder Cosway to let the 
boy go tu London for lessons, and promised to sustain 
him there. This happened when he was less than twelve 
years of age, so precocious was he ; for in January, 1755, 
it was young Cosway, " then under fourteen years old," 
so goes the entry in the books, who gained the very first 
prize ever offered by the newly-founded Society of Arts, 
and who followed it two years later, and again in 1758 
and 1759, by carrying off other money prizes offered by 
the same generous Society. Futhermore, in 1760, he 
captured a still more important trophy, carrying off, as 
the entry tells us, " in a most triumphant manner, and 
with a drawing of the highest possible merit," the prize 


of Thirty Guineas offered for a drawing of the Uving 
figure by young men under twenty-four years of age. 
Small wonder, then, that Cosway, having more than 
justified all expectations, was sent to Thomas Hudson's 
studio, and thence to Shipley's Drawing School, and 
determining, as he himself writes, " to be, some day, the 
greatest artist in London," was able very soon to take 
engagements on his own account. Thus, in 1760, when 
only eighteen years old, he commenced to exhibit his 
portraits, and continued to do so down to 1806, a period 
of nearly half a centur^^ He was one of the earhest 
Associates of the Royal Academy, and in 1771 became a 
full Royal Academician, but his supreme success dated 
from the moment when the Prince Regent took notice 
of him, admired a portrait he had painted of Mrs. Fitz- 
herbert, and condescended to sit himself to the artist 
for his portrait. Cosw'ay then suddenly became one of 
the most popular artists of the day, and left his home in 
Berkeley Street (or Berkeley Row as it was then called), 
to which, in 1781, he had brought his bride ; for a more 
sumptuous dwelling in Pall Mall, and in Schomberg House 
he and Mrs. Cosway lived in great splendour. There it 
was that Mrs. Cosway started her evening concerts which, 
especially on Sunday evenings, were among the most 
popular reunions of the day, and are often alluded to in 
contemporary correspondence, notably in the letters of 
Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, and in those of Horace 
Walpole. It was at this time that Cosway was able to 
give full play to his passion for fine dress and admiration. 
" I have seen him," says J. T. Smith, " at the elder Christie's 
picture sales, full-dressed in his sword and bag, with a 
small three-cornered hat on the top of his powdered 
toupee, and a mulberry silk coat profusely embroidered 
with scarlet strawberries." Needless to say, he was 
ofttimes caricatured, and as the " Macaroni Miniature 
Painter," as " Tiny Cosmetic," or as " Billy Dimple," he 


was criticised and satirised, many a clever print of the 
day representing him in conspicuous costume, gorgeous 
in colour and style. 

Angelo tells an amusing anecdote illustrating the painter's 

On one occasion, at the Royal private view, the President, 
Reynolds, was ill with the gout and unable to be present 
to receive the Prince of Wales, who came as the representa- 
tive of his father. Cosway, to his great joy, was appointed 
to act for Sir Joshua, and he received the Prince, says 
Angelo, "in a dove-coloured suit, silver embroidered 
Court dress, with sword, bag, wig and chapeaii has. He 
followed the royal party through all the apartments, 
uttering a hundred high-flown compliments. When the 
Prince retired, the grand little man attended him to the 
carriage, and, in the presence of the crowd, retreated 
backwards with measured steps, making at each step 
a profound obeisance, when, sad to relate, his sword got 
between his legs, and he was suddenly prostrate in the 
mud. ' Just as I anticipated. Oh ! ye gods ! ' exclaimed 
the Prince as he drove away." 

It should be mentioned, as showing Cosway 's love of 
carrying a sword, that in Zoffany's painting of the 
Academicians, no one but Cosway, save the President 
himself, is depicted wearing a sword. Cosway stands 
in the right corner of the picture, grandly dressed with 
lace ruffles, sword and tall cane. 

In 1791, the painter left Pall Mall and settled in Stratford 
Place, first in the comer house, then No. i, and lately 
No. 21 ; and then some three months afterwards in a 
house two doors further up the street, now called No. 20. 
The reason for his sudden change was as follows. The 
first residence had then, and until very lately, still possessed 
a stone lion erected on its exterior pediment, and this 
object at once attracted the attention of Peter Pindar, 
the cruel satirist of the day, who wrote the oft-quoted lines 


which some reckless person affixed to the door of Cosway's 
new residence : — 

" When a man to a fair for a show brings a lion 
'Tis usual, a monkey the signpole to tie on ! 
But here the old custom reversed is seen, 
For the lion's without and the monkey's within." 

Poor, susceptible Cosway, who, Smith tells us, " was, 
although a well-made little man, certainly very like a 
monkey in the face," was horrified at the lampoon, 
sacrificed his lease and moved two doors further up the 

Here, in his new premises, he allowed his love of display 
full opportunity. 

He filled his rooms with wonderful and costly treasures ; 
had his furniture covered in magnificent Genoa velvet ; 
collected splendid examples of rare porcelain, armour, 
rock crystal, bronzes and Persian rugs ; and was so pleased 
with the effect of it all that he extended his purchases 
and obtained fine pictures, drawings, miniatures and prints. 
Indeed, he was not at all averse to combining the occupation 
of a dealer in works of art with the scarcely less lucrative 
emplo\TTient of a popular portrait painter. 

Smith, in his " Life of Nollekens," gives a gorgeous 
account of Cosway's rooms when, at the zenith of his 
popularity, he lived and entertained like a prince. 

Possessed, by this time, of ample means, he prepared 
to travel, and did it in grand style, taking %\-ith him to 
Paris both carriages and servants, and while there presented 
to the Louvre, to hide "the bareness of its walls," a 
magnificent series of cartoons by Giulio Romano which 
had come into his possession. For this gift he refused 
any acknowledgment, presenting to the Piince of Wales 
four rich pieces of Gobelin tapestrj', that had been at 
once placed at his disposal in return for his gift. 

I must not here continue the storv, which is set out 


elsewhere/ but it suffices to say that this career of 
splendour could not last, and presently the estrangement 
that took place between the artist and his royal patron 
produced an alteration in his circumstances ; and then, 
to cloud his later years, there followed mental disorder of 
a grave order, hallucinations, mysticism, and eventually 
paralysis. Finally, he left Stratford Place ; his superb 
possessions were sold, and realised, for the day, high prices ; 
the artist and his wiie moved into Edgware Road, into 
" a tiny but very cosy " house, and on July 4th, 1802, 
when out for a drive with a friend, Cosway had a final 
stroke of paralysis, and died in the carriage before he 
arrived home. 

Mrs. Cosway was a certain Maria Hadfield, a Catholic 
girl, born in Florence, and brought to England, as a 
youthful prodigy in art, at the earnest solicitation of 
Angelica Kaufmann, who had a great admiration for her 
genius. She was patronised by Charles Towneley, the 
connoisseur, and at his house met Cosway, whom she 
married in 1781 ; Angelica, Towneley and Thomas Banks, 
R.A., all being present at the ceremony. There was but 
one child, Louisa Paolina Angelica, and she died at the 
age of six. Mrs. Cosway had frequently been in France 
and Italy during her husband's lifetime, and after his 
death she decided to make her home in the latter countr}', 
and founded a College at Lodi, near Milan, for the education 
of girls. 

This, eventually, she handed over to a religious order, 
known as the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or in 
Italy as the Dame Inglesi, and, attaching the buildings 
(which she bought and altered) to the Church, which was 
close at hand, she herself entered the Order and endowed 
it with her fortune. In 1834, the Emperor Francis I. 
visited the buildings, expressed entire satisfaction with 

^ See for all further details the two books I have written on 
Richard Cosway 1897 and 1905. 


Plate XXI. 


1. Mrs. Parsons {n^e Huflf). 

At one time in the possession of Mrs. C. J. Pakenham 
Lawrell, and now in the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont 

2. The two children of William, fifth Duke of Devonshire — 

Georgiana, afterwards Countess of Carlisle, and Harriet, after- 
wards Countess of Granville. 

At one time in the Collection of the Honourable Blanche 



them, and created the munificent Founder, a Baroness 
of the Empire. Many similar honours were eventually 
bestowed upon her, and the scholastic establishment she 
founded continued to increase, becoming a very prosperous 
and popular institution. 

In these buildings the Baroness Cosway lived till the 
time of her death, which took place on January 5th, 1838, 
and she lies buried in a vault under the nuns' chapel. 

The buildings still exist, and testify to her generosity 
and wisdom ; while the quaint interior decoration in the 
dining-room, which she caused to be carried out, enshrines 
a memorial tablet to her beloved husband, whose memory 
she never ceased to cherish. Many of her own artistic 
works and a goodly number of Cosway 's drawings, with 
his books and papers, formed part of her gift to the house ; 
but access to the building is impossible, and none of its 
contents can be seen or disturbed. A full account of them 
will be found in the Memoirs already alluded to. Her own 
work was not specially interesting, and partook too freely 
of the sentimental and pseudo-classical spirit that was 
popular in her day. She copied some of her husband's 
works with some success, but lacked the strength, virility 
and charm that he possessed to a superlative degree. 

It remains to say that Cosway was a clever, although 
lamentably inaccurate draughtsman, and that he has left 
behind him many fine pencil portrait drawings, in which 
the faces and hands are tinted, in miniature fashion ; as well 
as many skilful drawings of a classical or rehgious character. 
Some of these are signed in full ; others with the small " R " 
inside the big " C," which formed his monogram. His 
miniatures, with three exceptions, are, so far as I know 
(and I have examined scores of them), never signed on 
the face, but on the back, in a grand and pompous manner, 
an example of which appears as an illustration overleaf. 

Of the three signed on the face, one bore, in addition, 
the pompous signature on the reverse ; another — a portrait 




of Kitty Clive — is signed " R.C.," and dated 1755 (and 
there is just a possibility that this is not by Cosway at 
all, but by Richard Collins) ; while the third is a work 
resembling an enamel, and was probably an experiment 
which the artist desired to mark in a distinctive fashion. 
His signature on correspondence in English possession 
is practically confined to one letter, one order, and one 

note for payment of ground rent — all were in the \\'ellesley 
collection ; but, somewhere in Ireland, probably in a 
religious house, there should exist a box full of his letters 
and papers which were gathered up by his wife in order 
that a memoir of him might be written, and then lost 
by the relative of her own into whose hands she committed 
their custody. 


Some of the artist's papers and deeds, and his diploma 
as a Royal Academician, together with that of Mary 
Moser, R.A., with whom at one time he had intimate 
relations, are still preserved in Italy, and have all been 
seen and examined by me. One of his sketch-books also 
still remains. Specimens of his ivories, colours, brush, 
playing-cards and paper have been given by me to the 
Royal Academy, and rest in its library. 



THE two chief rivals to Cosway as the miniature 
painters of the day were Andrew Plimer and 
George Engleheart. George Engleheart, as we 
shall see later, was painter to the King, while Cosway 
was chiefly concerned about the court and entourage of 
the Prince Regent, and, therefore, they did not come 
into so sharp a competition as did Cosway and Plimer. 
Andrew Plimer was at one time Cosway's pupil, but he 
soon grew to become a rival, and often some members 
of the same family had their portraits painted by Cosway, 
while others went to Plimer. The results have been a 
little curious, for, although Plimer's work differs materially 
from that of Cosw^ay, yet it has been labelled frequently 
with his name, and there are many miniatures by Plimer 
which even now are attributed by their owners to the 
greater artist. 

Andrew Plimer, the son of a clockmaker at Wellington, 
was bom in 1763 ; Nathaniel, his elder brother, in 1757. 
There is a flavour of romance connected with their earlj' 
story. ^ They were brought up as clockmakers, but much 
disliking ^ the business, they ran away and joined a party 

^ I endeavoured to gather up all the information available con- 
cerning him and his brother in a book which was published on 
" Andrew and Nathaniel Plimer " in 1903. It contains illus- 
trations of a ver^' large number of his works, including some of his 
clever drawings in pencil, larger paintings in oil, and of the big effec- 
tive coloured drawings which he did towards the close of his life. 

• •• Misliking " they called it. 



of gipsies with a menagerie, and wandered about with 
them in their caravans for many months, gradually drawing 
nearer to London. While with the gipsies, they are said 
to have painted scenery for a village play, and to have 
decorated the fronts and sides of the menagerie vans with 
figures of animals and men, which were so satisfactory 
that the gipsies begged them to remain with them, promising 
them every favour, and the hands of two of the prettiest 
girls of their tribe for their wives. During this period, 
it is said that they made their own brushes from bristles 
and horsehair, and the hair of the various animals in the 
menagerie ; compounded their own colours from various 
plants ; and, indeed, did not hesitate to steal decorators' 
paints in the towns which they passed. This went on for 
a couple of years. They wandered first through Wales and 
Western England, and then at last came to Buckingham, 
when they washed from their faces the walnut juice with 
which previously they had stained them, wrapped up 
their possessions into two red and yellow shawls, deserted 
their gipsy friends, and marched on into London. There, 
they were at one moment nearly starving, but eventually 
received some money from their parents, and at once 
commenced to take lessons in drawing. Eventually, 
Nathaniel entered the employ of Henry Bone, the enameller, 
as an assistant, and Andrew became personal servant to 
Cosway, in order to be near to the painter. He was engaged 
as studio boy in Berkeley Street, and was set to clean the 
studio and to grind and mix the colours. He pleased 
Mrs. Cosway, however, by his determination and his 
good manners, and she employed him to announce callers, 
and to assist her at her parties. A few days after the 
Cosways had moved into Schomberg House, the artist 
detected young Plimer tr^ang to copy one of his miniatures, 
and found he did it so well that he sent him off to an 
engraver, who was probably John Hall, where he had 
further tuition. Li 1783, he was back with the Cosways 


Plate XXII. 

1. Rebecca, wife of John, first Lord Northwick, and mother of 

" The Three Graces," the three Misses Rushout. 
In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 

2. Mrs. Ker, of Blackshiels (1784). 

In the Collection of Miss Ker. 



at Schomberg House, and there he remained, probably 
in company with his brother, who is said by this time to 
have left Bone's studio, and for a year at least he took 
some lessons from Cosway, and also copied many of his 
miniatures. " Andrew will be my Elisha," said Cosway 
on one occasion ; adding, with a characteristic touch of 
vanity, " if I am not constrained to carry my mantle 
up to Paradise with me." In 1785, Plimer started on his 
own account, setting up his studio in Great Maddox Street, 
now called Maddox Street, and afterwards resided in 
Golden Square, in two separate houses, first at No. 3, and 
then at No. 8. 

He married in February, 1801, a Miss Knight, a member 
of an old Northamptonshire family, the wedding taking 
place at Wicken, in Northamptonshire, and Richard 
Cosway and his wife, Jeremiah Meyer, R.A., with another 
Academician whose name is unknown, went down to the 
little country place in a post-chaise to be present on the 
interesting occasion. He had five children, four daughters 
and a boy ; the latter died when quite a child ; and of 
the four children, only the eldest one, Louisa, married, 
her husband being a certain Dr. John Scott, of Edinburgh. 
Mrs. Plimer survived all her family save the eldest daughter, 
at whose house she died, in 1861, at the age of eighty- 
eight. The happy couple do not seem to have had 
time for a honeymoon, but in the following August 
they went away for a while together, and a portion of 
the diary of Mrs. Plimer, kept on that occasion, is still in 

A few years later, Plimer was living at Exeter, in a 
house a few doors above St. Sidwell's Church, and while 
there was regarded as a somewhat proud and reserved 
man, who would very seldom allow his four handsome 
girls to associate with the neighbours, and kept himself 
very much apart from those near to him. In 18 18, he was 
back again in town, and then living in Upper York Street, 


Montagu Square ; but a couple of years later, he started 
to travel about in pursuit of work, leaving his wife and 
children at home, probably in London. We hear of him 
at Reading, at Brighton, in Devonshire, Cornwall and 
Dorsetshire, in Wales and in Scotland. He was verv 
successful ; had as much work as he could possibly carry 
out ; and he spent the last two years of his life in Brighton, 
where he died in January, 1837, at the age of seventy-four. 
He was buried at Hove. He left behind him a substantial 
fortune, which went to his widow for her life, and was 
divided, at her decease, between his heirs. 

Of his brother Nathaniel we are not able to say quite 
as much. He resided in Great Marlborough Street in 
1787. After that, he was to be found in Maddox Street ; 
then at 81, New Bond Street ; and eventually at 13, 
Paddington Street ; and he is said to have died in 1822. 
We do not know the name of his wife, but he had four 
daughters, one of whom married the artist Andrew 
Geddes, a clever portrait painter and able etcher, and had 
a family. He is declared to have been a man of very high 
temper, giving way at times to serious outbursts of violence, 
but beyond these few detached facts, we have nothing 
definite concerning Nathaniel Plimer's life and career as 
an artist. 

The elder brother does not seem to have painted many 
miniatures, and the majority of those he carried out are 
small in size. A few of them are far finer in quality 
than are the works of Andrew Plimer, but most of them 
rank distinctly below those of his younger brother, both in 
point of beauty and quality of portraiture. 

Andrew Plimer's works were based distinctly on those 
of Cosway ; the backgrounds adopted by the two painters 
are very similar : as a rule, a charming combination of 
blues and greys, \vith a somewhat cloudy effect, the blue 
being that keen, ultramarine blue which Cosway so 
constantly used. Some of Plimer's miniatures, however. 


are painted on a very dark background of foliage and 
trees, but, generally speaking, the background is composed 
of blues, whites and greys. Two special features characterise 
his works ; the first is with regard to the eyes of the 
sitters, especially those of the ladies, who sat to him. 
His own daughters had very large and remarkable eyes, 
full of expression, and he so frequently painted portraits 
of his girls that he seems gradually to have surrendered 
himself to the charm of these very expressive and brilliant 
eyes, giving them to many of his sitters. They are almost 
always of unusually large size, a little showy in their 
flaunting beauty, and having a trifle of an effect of the 
Society beauty who has doctored her eye by the use of 
belladonna. Then again, with regard to the hair, he never 
represented it in masses, as did Cosway, but in lines, 
each hair being clearly delineated in a somewhat hard 
and rigid style. There is far more cross-hatching in the 
faces, and especially in the shadows of the neck and 
shoulders, than was the case with the work of Cosway ; 
and, moreover, he was exceedingly fond of the white 
muslin gowns so often worn in his day, which were open 
at the breast and neck, and are hardly more than bands 
on the shoulders, almost the whole of the neck and arm 
being revealed. It can hardly be that all the girls painted 
by Plimer wore these gowns, but clearly he preferred to 
delineate them in that costume, and he gave them full 
expressive eyes, a perfect mouth, a long neck, and a snowy 
bosom, and in this way produced an effect approaching 
monotony in his general work. Some of the loveliest of 
his portraits were those of his own children, and Mrs. 
Plimer, whose portrait he painted on many occasions, 
must herself have been a remarkably beautiful woman, 
while her youngest child, Joanna, was possessed of unusual 
charm and distinction. Few of his paintings are more 
beautiful than a large portrait of Joanna Plimer, which 
still belongs to the family, and a small one of her elder 


sister, Selina, represented in childhood, as a cherub, and 
almost equally lovely, is in my own possession. 

Plimer was rather given to painting groups, and the 
celebrated one, representing the three Ladies Rushout, 
known as "Three Graces," is perhaps his best-known 
work, a miniature which has done more than any other 
to make his name popular. In his early days he painted 
very small miniatures, and a group of five, representing 
different members of the Clayton family, in the collection 
of Lord Aberdare, show his work at its very best. Later 
on, he liked to paint large miniatures, especially groups 
of three persons, such as the group of the Affleck daughters, 
and one of the three daughters of John Simpson, of Bradley 
Hall, Durham, and other large ones. The miniatures are 
exceedingly effective, and look well in a collection, but 
Plimer was not a good draughtsman. In fact, it must be 
said that, as a rule, he was most inaccurate in that respect, 
although his male portraits are generally drawn better 
than those of the women. His smaller miniatures are 
certainly the more beautiful ; the larger ones are showy 
and effective — monotonous, as I have already said ; and 
a collection of miniatures by Plimer is thus rather tiring 
to examine. 



IN the previous chapter I have said that Engleheart^ 
must be regarded as one of Cosway's rivals, but as a 
matter of fact, they catered for two different classes 
in society. The smart and perhaps the more flippant people 
went to Cosway or to Plimer, who were the popular artists 
in the Court of the Prince Regent. The more seriously 
inclined sat to Engleheart. He painted George HI. more 
than twenty-five times, and executed portraits of many 
other members of the Royal Family, while his fee-book, 
which is still in existence, includes the names of notable 
people of the day who represented most of the great families 
of England. 

His principal work was done between 1775 and 1813, 
and, according to his note-books, during that time he 
painted nearly 5,000 miniatures. His earnings on the 
average were about £1,200 a year, rising in his best year, 
1788, up to ^^2,200, and falling in the very worst of these 
thirty years to £800. 

As regards this fee-book, it may be interesting to point 

^ In conjunction with a member of the Engleheart family, I 
gathered together in 1902 all the available information concerning 
this painter, represented a large number of his miniatures as the 
illustrations, and also gave facsimiles of some of the documents 
relating to his career. The same book contains a complete list of his 
sitters, extracted from his fee-book. 



out how exceedingly important it is in connection with the 
life of Engleheart. It gives a complete list of all the por- 
traits he painted in each year, together with the dates uprm 
which they were painted, the names of the persons who 
paid for them, and the amounts which were received, and 
page by page is carefully reckoned up, so that we know 
exactly how many portraits he executed during the given 
period, and precisely how much cash he received for them. 
At the end of the year, he makes a still further balance 
sheet. The total number of miniatures which he produced 
between 1775 and 18 13 runs up to the astonishing figure 
of 4,853 in all. Some years he was very busy ; for example, 
in 1788, he painted 228 miniatures ; in 1783 and in 1786, 
208 ; in 1790, 192, and then his figures vary from about 150 
down to about 80, the average being 100 more or less 
portraits per annum. By 1804, the numbers began to 
diminish. In that year and in 1810, he only painted 74 
pictures. In 1812, he painted 70 ; in 1813, only 30, and the 
entries cease. His prices varied in somewhat similar 
fashion. In 1775, he had from three to four guineas, and 
the following year, from four to five. In 1777, he charged 
the King ten guineas, other people six ; then in 1780, he 
started at five guineas, in the following year his minimum 
price was six, and by 1788, he had risen to eight guineas, 
and then he goes on slowly increasing his prices, until in 
1803 he has from twelve to fifteen guineas, in 1809 from 
fifteen to seventeen guineas, in 18 11 from eighteen to nine- 
teen guineas, and during the last two years of his work from 
twenty to twenty-five guineas. 

The King's portrait Engleheart painted many times, 
thrice in 1777, three times in the following year, and five 
times in 1783. Then he painted the King twice again in 
1784, four times in 1785, three times in 1786, five times in 
1787, and twice in 1788, and we find notes of his ha%ing 
executed portraits of the Princess Dowager of Wales, the 
Prince of Wales, and Princess Augusta as well. He also 


painted the Queen several times, the Duchess of Wurtem- 
burg, the Duke of Sussex and others. 

Furthermore, there are many curious scraps of family 
history recorded in this fee-book, all of importance to the 
student of social life of the time. 

Another very interesting feature of Engleheart's work 
is the fact that the careful preservation of his pigments 
and appliances has enabled us to know exactly what colours 
he used, and indeed to set out his palette just as he himself 
set it. 

He himself was wise enough in his prosperity, to invest 
his savings in property in London, mostly in what is now 
known as Mayfair, and when in 1812 he retired with an 
ample fortune, he was sure of a steady income for the rest 
of his life, and his careful investments have been of great 
value to those who have come after him, and who have 
reaped the benefit of his discretion. 

He came of a talented family, and one especially of his 
ancestors was a Court artificer, a very able modeller 
in plaster, and many of the wonderful ceilings at Hamp- 
ton Court Palace owe their beauty to the skill with 
which he practised his handicraft. He settled down 
close to the Royal domain at Kew, and married the daughter 
of its Vicar, while his sister-in-law became the wife of a 
certain John Dillman, who was responsible for laying out 
the original gardens of Kew Palace. 

Engleheart's brother, Thomas, was a worker in wax, 
and the dainty portraits that he produced, carved in this 
most fragile material, appear at least twenty times in the 
Royal Academy catalogues. Other members of the family 
became engravers, and several were artists, but George 
Engleheart was the only one who attained any great 
eminence. At the beginning of his life, he was a pupil of 
George Barret, R.A., and then he passed into the studio of 
Sir Joshua Reynolds. The influence Reynolds had upon 
him was very marked, and a whole-hearted affection grew 


up between the two men. The President allowed Engle- 
heart to copy in miniature many of his own fine oil paint- 
ings ; and, in fact, to some of these miniature copies, we owe 
all the information we possess regarding some lost pictures 
by Sir Joshua, and also respecting the appearance of the 
President's pictures when they were first completed. 

Engleheart began to exhibit at the Royal Academy when 
he was still with Reynolds. In 1775, he started on his own 
account, and then commenced the long career, during which 
he became not only one of the leading miniature painters 
of the day, but also one of the most prolific. In July, 
1813, \delding to the persuasion of his friends, he gave up 
the pursuit of portrait painting, and retired to a country 
house, at Bedfont. Eventually he moved to Blackheath, 
where he died in 1829, in his seventy-eighth year, and was 
buried at Kew, close to his friend Jeremiah Meyer and his 
contemporaries and acquaintances Gainsborough and 
Zoffany. Even after he had retired, he did not entirely 
relinquish work, and several miniatures are in existence, 
which are dated later than 1813 ; two of them especially, 
which bear the dates 18 16 and 18 18, are as well painted as 
anything he ever did. Fortunately, his descendants have 
kept, not merely his fee-book, papers, letters and sketches, 
but a large number of his miniatures, and the appliances 
he used, his desk, brushes, palettes and pigments, so that 
we know more of the life and career of George Engleheart 
than of any other miniature painter. 

The characteristic of his work is its absolute downright 
truth. There is no monotony about it, there is nothing 
extravagant or meretricious, but his portraits have a simple 
dignity, a straightforward character, and give the impres- 
sion that they are accurate representations and not 
idealised. The workmanship is verj' different from that 
of Cosway ; it does not possess the sparkle and glitter, the 
brilliance and the fascination of his miniatures. For, 
indeed, graceful painting, lightness of touch, exquisite 


transparency of colour, and the liquid quality of the tender 
gradations of tone, are the characteristics of Cosway, and 
are entirely different from the main features of the work of 
Engleheart. Engleheart's portraits are distinguished by 
careful drawing and rich colouring, and they possess a 
certain intellectual force in the expression. There is none 
of that vapid over-pleasant look that marks some of the 
portraits by Cosway and by Plimer ; one never sees the 
smirk of a foolish mind, or the evidence of a weak and 
trivial attention. Engleheart found out whatever was 
good about the face of the sitter, whatever intellectual 
force there was in the character, and he set it down ; and 
amongst all the crowd of eighteenth-century miniatures 
his works stand out as those most definitely marked by the 
impress of truth, and at the same time invariably pleasing 
in character and meritorious in colour. He was very 
careful about his pigments, and we know exactly what he 
used, and how well he tested them with a view to their 
permanence. He had a love for fine colour, and he 
appreciated a splendid costume, or a rich velvet coat, 
and set himself to carefully represent it. The elaborate 
hats of some of his girl sitters are exquisitely fashioned, 
and he seems to have taken an interest in the costume 
of the person who was to sit to him, so that one seldom 
sees any of his sitters robed in unbecoming fashion. 
The costume was always suitable to the age or position of 
the person who was wearing it. His miniatures are often 
signed in full on the reverse, and in many instances he 
added the date and his address to the signature. 
Others are signed on the face, low down on the right side as 
it faces the spectator, with the single letter " E," formed in 
easy flowing curves, a script "E" and not a square one. 
A few of his miniatures have " G.E." entwined, and one 
certainly has " G.E." in two separate square letters, this 
particular miniature being further authenticated by the 
usual signature in ink on the reverse. Once carefully 


Plate XXIII. 



A Gentleman. Signed. 

In the Collection of an anonymous collector. 

Anne, daughter of Thomas Fisher, and afterwards wife of Francis 
Jack Needham, who in 1818 (after her decease) succeeded 
as 12th Viscount Kilmorey, and in 1822 became Earl of Kil- 

Frances, daughter of Thomas Fisher, and wife of Henry Pigot, 
her first cousin, afterwar is Sir Henry Pigot. 

Both the above were at one time in the possession of Gen. 
Sir George Higginson, G.C.B., and are now in the Col- 
lection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 

I'l.ATK NXm 


examined, Engleheart's work should easily be detected, 
and his portraits of men are particularly fine in a certain 
simple, quiet dignity which they possess. His women's 
portraits often represent the sitters in vivacious fashion. 
There are a few examples in which a husband and wife are 
depicted together in profile, and towards the latter end of 
his life, he executed some large drawings, in which the 
drapery is only very slightly indicated, and all the main 
attention is given to the face. His copies after Sir Joshua 
Reynolds are of considerable importance and value from 
the point of view of art students. 

Engleheart had two pupils. One was John Cox Dillman 
Engleheart, and the other was his distant connection, 
Thomas Richmond. J. C. D. Engleheart went to his 
uncle's studio in 1798, and after a while set up a studio of 
his own in Newman Street, Oxford Street, removing later 
on first into Berners Street, then into Upper Berkeley 
Street, and again into Cavendish Square. He exhibited 
about 160 works at the Royal Academy, but when he was 
about forty-four years old, his health entirely broke up, 
he had to relinquish his profession, and he travelled about 
for some time on the Continent. On his return, he settled 
down at Tunbridge Wells, where he died in 1862, at the 
age of seventy-eight. 

His works are very different from those of his uncle, 
and, moreover, he had not the advantages either of costume 
or coiffure which belonged to his uncle's period. His 
colouring was far hotter than was that of George Engle- 
heart, and much more fanciful, but he was able sometimes 
to paint a simple straightforward portrait thoroughly 
well. Even then, the gorgeous backgrounds he loved 
so much and his dark rich colouring, itself a straining after 
the effect of oil painting, destroyed the charm and distinc- 
tion that belong to his uncle's work. The best portrait 
he ever painted was one of Sheridan. He was a very skilful 
draughtsman with the pencil, and occasionally his pencil 



drawings are to be found, and are always worth while 

Richmond was the father of two able sons, Thomas 
Richmond the younger and George Richmond, R.A. There 
were other members of the family who were talented, both 
in drawing and painting : Henry, George Engleheart's son, 
being a skilful architectural draughtsman, and Nathaniel 
and George, who were Engleheart's grandsons, having been 
responsible for some wonderful delineations of the form and 
colouring of some English moths. Probably no artists 
ever reproduced so perfectly the exquisite daintiness of 
some of the smaller moths in all their extreme minute 
beauty than did these two clever entomologists. So 
successful were they in handling the brush that they were 
able to paint, under each moth, its full name and the in- 
formation respecting it, in beautiful square characters, 
that are still as perfect as though they were printed, 
instead of having been painted with a tiny brush. 



THE noblest and most dignified miniatures of the 
eighteenth century were undoubtedly those 
painted by John Smart. This is not to say that 
they are the most fascinating, nor, perhaps, those which 
will the most readily be appreciated. Smart's work needs 
to be understood before it can be properly admired, and at 
the first glance the ordinary collector will be more ready 
to exult over the brilliant work of Cosway ; the flippant, 
flaunting beauty of the work of Plimer, or the solid, gran- 
diose dignity of the portraits by Engleheart. On more 
careful examination, however, it will be found that no 
miniatures are so well worthy of study as are those of John 
Smart, and I think it will then be granted that the words 
noble and dignified which I have used concerning them, are 
justified. Moreover, in dealing with Smart, we have to do 
with an extremely accurate draughtsman, whose work, in 
consequence, is exceedingly satisfactory from that point of 
view. Again, we have a man who had evidently studied 
the anatomy of the human face with great care and close 
diligence, because no faces are represented on miniatures 
of the eighteenth century with such skill and accuracy, 
as are those depicted by John Smart. It was wisely said 
by John Russell, R.A., to one of his pupils, that the most 
important duty of a portrait painter was to learn thor- 
oughly all that was to be known about anatomy, and then 



to forget it, and the value of the advice will be appreciated 
when a few moments' consideration is given to the state- 
ment. The knowledge must be there, the artist must know 
where the bones of the structure have their place, how they 
are covered by the flesh, how the muscles act and reac 
both on the bones and on the flesh structure, the position 
of the great centres of nervous energy, the contours of the 
flesh with all that they mean in representing that which 
lies under them, and then, when this information is acquired 
almost with a surgical accuracy, the harder and more 
technical details must be banished from the mind, and the 
knowledge itself must constitute a power by which proper 
delineation can be guided, and must not be forced in any 
way beyond what is absolutely necessary and true. Such 
was the manner of John Smart. We may feel certain that 
the old story that he was intended at first for a surgeon 
must have had some basis of solid fact. We do not know 
who his father was ; it is possible that he may himself have 
been a medical man, or a surgeon. It is merely a rumour 
that John was to be brought up to the surgical profession ; 
but the more one looks into his miniatures, the more one is 
convinced that the man who painted them had a thor- 
oughl}^ sound knowledge of the human body, for the bony 
structures are never misplaced, the faces and shoulders are 
never inaccurately given, the hollows of the neck and 
bosom, with all their subtle modelling, are perfectly ren- 
dered, and when a shadow falls, it falls exactly in the right 
place, and from exactly the right position, so that the 
portraits painted by John Smart are just perfect representa- 
tions of the faces and figures of the sitters. 

We know but very little about the history of Smart, and 
we would fain know a great deal more about the man who 
must be considered as the chief miniature painter of the 
eighteenth century, notwithstanding the reputation, the 
brilliance, and the fascination of Cosway or the solid worth 
of Engleheart. We do know that he was bom in Norfolk 


at some small village near to Norwich, on May ist, 1740, 
and that he died on the anniversary of the same day 
seventy years afterwards. He came from the country 
whence sprang Cotman and Croome and the later successors 
of that famous Norwich school, but he appears to have come 
to London very early in life, before he was fourteen, and 
perhaps for the surgical training already alluded to. In 
1755 he gained a prize from the Society of Arts in one of 
their earliest competitions, and, oddly enough, divided the 
premium with Cosway, whose acquaintance he perhaps 
made at that time. Cosway produced a Head of one of 
the Virtues done in chalk. Smart an Academy Figure in 
pencil, and both of them were said to be under fourteen 
years old at the time. 

He followed up this success by taking off another prize 
in 1757, and yet another in 1758. Then he seems to have 
become a pupil of an English miniature and subject painter, 
one Daniel Dodd, of whom also we know practically no- 
thing, save that he was a member of the Free Society of 
Artists, and that he painted two large groups, one repre- 
senting a Royal procession to St. Paul's, and another a 
meeting of the Royal Academy, neither of which can at 
present be traced. 

From Dodd's studio. Smart migrated to St. Martin's 
Lane Academy, and then, in early days, began to exhibit 
with the Incorporated Society of Artists, later on becoming 
a Director and then a Vice-President of the Society. 
Furthermore, we know that he married one Edith Vere, and 
that he resided at 4, Russell Place, Fitzroy Square. 

When working amongst the papers of Cosway, at the 
convent founded by his wife, I was able to ascertain, for 
the first time, that Smart was for a while a pupil of Cosway, 
although there was only one year's difference in their 
respective ages. Curiously enough, no miniature painter 
of his day shows less sign of following the habit, or the 
colouring, or the style of Cosway than docs Smart, and I 


Plate XXIV. 

(c. 1740-1811). 

Sarah Tyssen (i 756-1 790). Signed and dated. 

In the Collection of the Rev. R. A. J. Suckling. 

The Infant Son of John Smart. 

At one time in the possession of Mr. E. M. Hodgkins. 

Called a portrait of Maria Cosway, dated 1784. M.C. on 
reverse. Signed. 

Formerly in the Collection of Mr. George Salting. 



am inclined, therefore, to believe that the pupilage must 
have lasted a comparatively short time. Oddly enough, 
Cosway himself seems to have appreciated Smart's work, 
and yet the miniatures painted by the younger man are so 
dissimilar from those of Cosway that one is almost sur- 
prised to find that the Academician admired the work of 
his pupil. Moreover, Cosway was not given to praising 
the work of others. He valued himself far too highly to do 
so, and he used to look down, with something approaching 
contempt, upon the artists who were his rivals and con- 
temporaries. He would, of course, notice that Smart's 
miniatures lacked the brilliance and sparkle which he was 
able to put into his own pictures, that they were infinitely 
more serious, sombre, etc., quiet ; and so it was that in two of 
his letters to his wife he unites, with his praise of Smart's 
work, curious pieces of criticism, which a comparison 
of the miniatures painted by the two men enables one to 
understand. " Honest John's faces," he says in one 
letter, " are still not round enough to my liking, but after 
a few days, I will get him to my way of thinking." " Faith- 
ful John," he says in another, " hard at work as ever, he 
fain will be great and methinks he is, as he takes such pains 
and care albeit he is slow and a bit washy." And then 
finally, " John Smart's women are too stiff still, but I like 
his portraits with all my heart." " Stiff " is perhaps a 
charge that may with some justification be applied to 
Smart's work. There is a certain formality and demureness 
about his sitters. " Washy " is almost the last word one 
would apply to them, but perchance Cosway means that 
the colouring was thin and, in his estimation, a little poor, 
not possessing the richness, and the showy brilliance, of his 
own. In other notes Cosway calls him " Honest John 
Smart " and " Good little John," and therefore we imagine 
that he was a person of short stature, probably also of 
very simple habits, and this can be understood with greater 
accuracy when we learn that he belonged to a curious and 


little-known religious sect called Glassites or Sandemanians. 
This sect is known almost entirely, because Michael Faraday 
was one of the adherents to its special tenets. It was 
composed of persons who held very simple religious views, 
a little eccentric in some special features, but characterised 
b}' great devoutness of feeling, a careful adlierence to the 
teaching of Holy Scripture as understood by themselves, 
a markedsimplicityof ritual, and an intense attachment to 
the dictates of conscience and the regulations of duty. 
Faraday himself, in addressing one who had been a favourite 
pupil, cut off intentionally the pleasure of further corre- 
spondence with this man, because he felt sure that such 
correspondence tended to unsettle the person to whom it 
was addressed, and to lead him himself to attach a greater 
importance to some of his discoveries while narrating them 
to another, than he considered a simple Christian man 
should do.^ The Sandemanians were not people of high 
education, nor perhaps even of great culture, and they 
belonged for the most part to what we now regard as the 
lower middle classes. They were sweet, quiet, kindly 
people, and methinks one can see perhaps something of 
their aspect of life in the simple Quakerish miniatures 
which Smart painted. 

In 1783, we hear of the artist in Ipswich, and of his 
exhibiting at the Royal Academy for some five years, and 
then, in 1788, he went off to India. The East had, at that 
time, very special attractions for an artist. The Indian 
potentates were not only very anxious to have their por- 
traits painted by English artists, but they were prepared 
to pay very large sums for that pri\ilege, and to " shake 
the Pagoda-tree " was the ambition of every artist of the 
day, however simple and unworldly he may other%\ise have 
been. Smart's journey to India was a rather disturbing 
element in the mind of Ozias Humphry, to whom I refer 

^ This information is Irora a very near relation of my o^vn (D.W.) 
who received and cherished Faraday's letter. 


in the next chapter, because the latter clearly recognised 
in Smart a superior craftsman to himself, and he was rather 
afraid that Smart would thus take away some of the choice 
commissions which he was eagerly anticipating. Humphry 
heard from Joseph Farrington, a Roj'al Academician of 
the day, that Smart intended to go no further than Madras, 
and if that was the case, Humphry said, it would not be of 
much consequence to him ; but, he added, if Smart was 
going on to Calcutta, it would be a serious injury to them 
both; " I cannot with decency or the least satisfaction to 
myself take any steps to prevent him, though the object 
of my trip to India was to be frustrated by it." Ozias 
Humphry was an ambitious and somewhat avaricious man, 
and, in his desire to obtain riches, was at times unscrupu- 
lous. He was at the moment of writing, under a sort of 
engagement to Miss Boydell, and Smart was to have 
painted her picture. He did not want her to make the 
acquaintance of Cosway, as Cosway was a noted flirt, and 
she a particularly good-looking woman. He was inclined 
to recommend Jeremiah Meyer, but he would sooner Smart 
painted the portrait than any one else, because he was sure 
it would be a good portrni'- so he went on, in a letter to 
Miss Boydell, to say, that one of his chief reasons for per- 
suading her to sit to Smart, and to ask her friends to do the 
same, was not to help Smart at all, but rather that the 
artist might think " it prudent to defer his trip to India 
till next winter," by which time Humphry would have got 
the position that he coveted. As it turned out, Humphry 
was foolish to make this remark, because he showed his own 
selfishness in so doing, and thus annoj^ed Miss Boydell. 
The lady did sit to Smart, and the portrait containing her 
miniature reached Humphry in India and was pronounced 
to be a very satisfactory one. After a while, Humphry had 
to leave Calcutta, and then again Smart enters into the 
story, for in one of his letters he says he fears that his 
leaving Calcutta " may make room for Mr. Smart, who is 


now at Madras," and he thinks that if Smart did come to 
Calcutta it would oblige him to have to paint in oil, in 
order to compete with Smart, because there was no oil 
painter there except Hickey, " a very weak painter in 
oil," and Zoffany, who was about to return to England, 
but the people who saw the " highly finished pictures of 
Smart " " grow nice and want good pennyworths," and 
then he finishes up by saying that as Smart did not paint 
in oil, but only in miniature, he must do something in order 
to compete with him. As a matter of fact, in this last 
statement, Ozias Humphry was in error, because Smart did 
occasionally paint in oil, once certainly, and a large picture 
of an Indian potentate, the work of John Smart, and 
signed by him, hangs in the smaller reading-room of the 
Oriental Club, giving us clear proof that Smart could paint 
in oil, although one is bound to say that the portrait, 
although important, is not a notable production, and is 
evidently the work of some one not accustomed to that 
medium in which it was executed. There are altogether 
many allusions in Ozias Humphry's correspondence, both 
to the fine miniature which Smart painted of Miss Boydell 
and which Humphry admired with great enthusiasm, and 
to his great dread of coming into competition with Smart, 
who was at that time his chief rival, and who, he said, 
drew better than he could. Beyond these few references 
in Humphr\'''s letters, however, we know practically 
nothing of Smart's life in India. We are told that he 
visited the courts of many native Princes, and that he 
painted the Rajahs and the Viziers, their children and 
their wives, and in their very Palaces there should still be 
found by a skilful collector fine examples of Smart's work. 
He appears to have adopted, with punctilious attention, the 
idea of putting the letter " I " underneath the initials of his 
own name, on all the portraits he painted in India, and 
such portraits as those of Lord Cornwallis, a Mr. Thomas 
Cockbum, and of a Mr. and Mrs. Wliite, and other Indian 


officials, are proved to have been painted in that country 
by the presence of this initial. 

In addition to miniatures Smart seems to have executed, 
both in India and in England, some wonderful pencil 
drawings, and it seems to be quite possible that, in his 
careful way, he prepared a sketch in pencil for each por 
trait, before he painted miniatures. A large number of 
these pencil portraits are still in existence, some in his 
sketch-books, and others separately framed. They came 
after Smart's death to a Miss Smart, who was possibly his 
sister, but who may perchance have been his daughter. 
She had a great friend, one Mary Smirke, daughter of 
Robert Smirke the architect, who lived near Fitzroy Square, 
and to this Miss Smirke, Miss Smart seems to have left 
whatever she possessed in the way of drawings and sketch- 
books. Inconsequence there are in the possession of two 
descendants of the Smirke family quite a large collection 
of pencil drawings by Smart. 

One of them offers a curious problem with regard to 
Smart's family. It has been said that he had but one son, 
who was known as John Smart the younger. A certain 
Samuel Paul Smart, who also exhibited at the Royal 
Academy in the eighteenth century, was certainly not his 
child, and was very probably no relation at all to him. 
The son was also a person of quite small stature ; a casual 
reference to him in the pages of The Spectafor speaks of 
" little John Smart," and another similar allusion in aeon- 
temporary letter refers to " little John the clever painter," 
and the context shows that it was Smart the younger who 
was meant by that phrase. This John Smart the younger 
accompanied his father to India and died, in Madras, in 
1809. There is, however, in the Smirke collection a 
delightful pencil sketch by John Smart which is inscribed : 
" John Dighton bom at Matrosse, East India, June 1793, 
died in London March 18 10. Painted a few days before 
his death by his grandfather John Smart," while on the 


Plate XXV. 


(1740 ?-i8ii). 

Lady OakeleyJ( 1762-1839) {n^e Beatson). 

In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 

Mr. Featherstonhaugh. 

In the Collection of the Lord Hothfieid. 

Nelly Garnett (1770). 

At one time in the possession of Mr. E. M. Hodgkins. 

The Honourable Thomas Walpole. 

From the Collection of the late Sir Spencer Walpole. 



back of the picture is a still further inscription : " March 
25, aged 17, painted by Mr. Smart his grandfather." 
Moreover, there is a finished miniature of the lad in exist- 
ence, also the work of John Smart, which has at the back 
of it the initials " J.D.S.," so whether the younger Smart 
had a son whose name w'as John Dighton Smart, or whether 
Smart had a daughter whose married name was Dighton, is 
not very clear, but the presumptive e\'idence is in favour 
of the first-named theory, and it ma\^ follow that the boy, 
after the death of his father in India, came back to England, 
and died himself in the following year. 

The younger Smart was almost as clever as his father, 
but he appears to have painted very few miniatures. His 
owTi portrait was painted by his father as a child, and the 
miniature, inscribed on the back, " The infant son of John 
Smart," is in America, while a pencil sketch for it, slightly 
touched with colour,'is in the collection already mentioned. 
Some of the son's work was on a larger scale than that of 
his father, and one miniature especially, which was in the 
possession of Mr. Gerald Ponsonby, is unusually big, 
perhaps one of the largest of the eighteenth-century pro- 
ductions. Others represent a Mrs. Turning, dated i8to ; 
Mr. Booty, a purser, dated 1797, and Mr. Michael Topping, 
a surveyor-general and astronomer of the East India 
Company, which was painted in 1796 ; but there are 
sketches by the younger Smart for Admiral Young, Lord 
Hawke, Mr. C. S. Winglield, Dr. Johnson, Mr. Rallard, 
Captain Gregory, Mr. Alfred Clark, Sir Thomas Elliott, 
Lady Wentworth, and Lady Ratcliffe, of which the actual 
miniatures are unknown, and perchance some collector 
may yet be able to discover them. 

While in India, both father and son are said to have 
adopted an extreme simplicit}' of life, spending very little 
upon their clothes and food, and to have been more tena- 
cious than ever to the peculiar tenets of the Sandemanians' 
doctrine, taking every word of Scripture in its literal sense. 


offering a stern objection to second marriages, and shunning 
cards, dice, and all games of chance, because of their 
definite opinion that the " lot " was a very sacred thing. 
These statements are preserved for us in a letter written 
by a certain Diana Dally to her friend from India, in which 
she writes of having met Mr. Smart and his son, and seems 
somewhat disposed to poke fun at them for their quiet 

It does not appear likely that Smart made anything in 
the way of a great financial success in India. Apparently 
he was not eager for such success, and was merely anxious 
to obtain what he regarded as a competence. His 
cool, soft-coloured, rather Quakerish miniatures were not 
as popular in the native courts as some of the more brilliant 
works of his contemporaries ; but he painted the portraits 
of a considerable number of the English residents in India, 
as well as of natives, and he is said, upon good tradition, 
to have kept a book containing the names of the persons he 
painted, and recording the prices which he received for 
these portraits. Unfortunately, that book cannot be 
found ; it would be of extreme interest if ever it could be 

When Smart came home from India, he appears to have 
made the acquaintance of an artist called Toussaint, who 
was not merely a clever miniature painter, but also a 
jeweller, and who devoted considerable attention to design- 
ing and making wonderful frames for miniatures, on several 
occasions producing special frames for works by Smart. 
A superb portrait that was once in the Marshall-Hall 
collection was in a frame designed by Toussaint ; another, 
also his work, was in the collection of Miss ffoulkes, and 
it is said that the simple frame of pearls and diamonds in 
which was contained the portrait of Smart's son as a baby, 
to which allusion has just been made, was also the work of 
this able jeweller. Mr. Hodgkin had, at one time, several 
miniatures by Smart enclosed in elaborate frames of 


unusually fine gold work, which were probably executed by 
the same man. 

Smart exhibited many times at the Royal Academy, 
but, save in three or four instances, the names of his sitters 
are not given. He sent portraits of himself, of Miss Smart, 
and twice of his son, once as Mr. Smart, and once as Mr. 
Smart junior ; to the exhibitions, and he exhibited portraits 
of Colonel Reynolds, and of Nollekens the sculptor, but 
beyond these few names, we cannot identify any of the 
portraits he sent to the exhibitions. His death I have 
already recorded, but where it actually took place, beyond 
the fact that it was in London, is not quite clear, and it is 
tantalising to feel that of the greatest artist of that period 
we know so little, and that the few scraps of information 
we do possess are all such as would lead us to believe that 
he must have been a man of extraordinary interest, unusual 
in his day and generation, both in his personal character 
and in his art, and one about whom we would gladly have 
far fuller details. Moreover, he was so careful that one 
may be sure the tradition that refers to his having kept a 
book of accounts and a list of his sitters is a firmly based 
one, and these documents are therefore the more eagerly 
to be desired. 

Now, as regards his portraits, and as helpful to the 
collector, it may be well to say that almost all his portraits 
represent only the head and bust. There are practically 
only two examples with which I am acquainted where 
accessories of any sort find a place in Smart's work. In 
one, a portrait of a lady painted in India in 1787, Smart has 
represented her as holding a book between two of her 
fingers and resting her hand upon a walking-stick. In 
another, an example of the forget-me-not is introduced 
between two fingers, painted with marvellous skill, and so 
perfectly kept as an accessory that it is not instantly 
reahsed that the flower is in the portrait at all, the attention 
of the spectator being taken almost exclusively by the face. 


The backgrounds are brown, greenish, grey, creamy-white, 
sometimes with a httle minghng of greenish-brown, and in 
a few examples almost black, the more highly coloured being 
greenish-grey in a sort of mingled, slightly modelled effect. 
The details of the costume, such as the star of an Order, or 
the buttons of the coat, a silk or lace tie, a pearl necklace 
or jewels, are always painted with extreme minuteness and 
perfect skill ; but, as already mentioned, all such accessories 
occupy their fitting place in the portrait. They are never 
unduly prominent, they have almost to be sought for. 
When found, the skill with which they are represented is 
instantly recognised : but it is the faces that attract, and 
the incomparable skill with which they are delineated 
gives Smart his high position. Moreover, there is nothing 
monotonous about Smart's work. There is an infinite 
variety about the expression of the faces, and both amongst 
his men's and women's portraits there is hardly one that 
is represented sad, and there are many in which — for a 
wonder — an almost sly humour is clearly to be perceived. 
One is disposed to think that Smart was a happy man, 
for he introduced this element of quiet content into his 
portraits, just lighting up some of them with the faintest 
glimpse of humour. One feels sure that he had striven for 
truth in his portraiture, and had obtained it. The portraits 
are clearly not flattered. They are life-hke. He was 
perhaps not quite skilful in composition ; at times the figures 
are set a little awkwardly inside the miniatures, and some- 
times one feels that the miniature would have been better 
if a little more background had been shown at one side of 
the head, or a little less on the other, or more above or 
below, and one is inclined to thmk sometimes that the 
lighting is not quite as perfect as one would have expected 
from so skilful a draughtsman. It has even been said that 
the painting is a little laborious and smells a trifle of the 
lamp, and that the modelling is a little over-definite ; but 
I am disposed to think that these are points of hyper-criti- 


cism, and that examination of a number of Smart's works 
will lead the collector to think that these delicate points of 
criticism are not wholly warranted, that Smart stands 
alone, complete and great in his work, and there is more 
real satisfaction in collecting his miniatures than in obtain- 
ing those of his contemporaries from the point of view in 
which they repay careful study, from the extreme dignity 
of their presentations, and the wonderful psychology of the 
miniatures, revealing to us, as they do, the very life of the 
person. The humour to which we have referred is more 
to be seen in the portraits of men than in those of women. 
In some of the women's portraits, the expression is a trifle 
sarcastic, even sardonic ; the humour cannot be kept outside 
altogether, but it takes upon itself a rather bitter tinge, 
whereas in the men's portraits it is lightef and more charm- 
ing. The texture of the flesh is incomparable, and one 
feels there is a strength in reserve, a certain grandeur in the 
reticence of the colour scheme, which is responsible for the 
high position one gives to Smart's work. It must be 
stated, moreover, that there are two periods to be marked in 
his miniatures ; those which he produced about 1770 being 
marked by an exceedingly smooth finish w'hich approaches 
to that of enamel, the stippling is exceedingly delicate, the 
purity of the colour well marked, and the miniatures that 
were painted within just these few years round about 1770 
are amongst his finest, but not perhaps amongst his greatest 
works. Just at that time, there was a little over -elabora- 
tion, but they are quite wonderful and worthy of close 
examination, though a little later there was super-added a 
breadth which was lacking in 1770. It would be interesting 
to know exactly what was the pigment Smart used for his 
flesh tints. It was not the ordinary lake, nor the customary 
carnation. It gives a very natural effect, albeit a trifle 
inclined to a brick-dust hue. Once recognised, it forms an 
easy touch-piece for detecting Smart's work. It is impos- 
sible to describe the colour, but the collector who gives 


some careful attention to the work of Smart will find the 
presence of this peculiar flesh tint almost invariable, and 
it will enable him practically in a flash to identify the work 
of this great painter. 

It might be well, in conclusion, to mention the names of 
a few persons whose portraits Smart undoubtedly painted, 
but whose miniatures have not yet been found. We know 
of the existence of these miniatures because the preparatory 
pencil sketches for them are still in existence, and it may 
be of some service to the collector if we mention that 
miniatures by John Smart representing the following 
persons have yet to be found and to be identified. This 
may perchance add some zest to the search for them. The 
names are these : — 

Miss Rawley, Mr. Stead of Tower Hill, Lord Craven, 
1783, Mr. Roche, Mr. Maquer, Major Banks, Elizabeth 
Balchin, Miss Benet, Sir G. Carew, Mr. Batson, Mr. Fitz- 
herbert, Sir John Lester, Mr. Jones, Mr. Ward, Miss C. 
Wolff, Lady Abington, Mr. Auriol (a member of the same 
family as that painted by Zoffany in India), Mr. Gambier, 
Mr. Aguilar, Sir Roger Twisden, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Read, 
Mr. Plomer, Mr. Tomkinson, Sir G. Armytage, Lady Oglan- 
der and Monsieur de Viapre. 

There are two portraits of Smart in existence, one 
resembles a silhouette, and was the work of John Miers. 
It was drawn in 1799, and presented by Smart to his wife, 
having an inscription on the back of it to that effect. It 
was really a painting in Indian ink on ivory, representing 
him in a high -collared coat and frilled cravat. It was in 
the WcUtsley Collection. The other portrait appears on a 
rare medal, and is declared to be the work of Smith M. 
Kirk, whose name appears on the exergue. It describes 
him as a miniatiire painter, and represents him as a man 
in middle life, wearing his hair in an elaborate pigtail. 
The medal has a plain reverse and is exceedingly scarce. 



THE only other artist of the eighteenth century who 
deserves a separate chapter to himself is Ozias 
Humphry ; he occupies as high a position as 
any of those in the second rank, and, indeed, in his finest 
work can be reckoned as important even as Cosway or 
Smart. The curious feature about Humphry's miniatures 
is that the unfinished ones, sketches for miniatures, are 
often finer and more important than his finished works. 
It is also a point of some importance, that, until quite 
recent years, his unfinished works had not received the 
attention they deserved, because a large proportion were 
hidden away from public sight, and known to very few 
persons outside quite a small circle. Humphry's sketches 
are brilliant impressions, but too many of his miniatures 
are over-elaborate, and too detailed in treatment. This 
is especially the case with the portraits he painted while in 
India. He was carried away by the glowing colour of the 
robes worn by the various native olficials whose portraits 
he delighted to paint, and by the appearance of their 
jewels, chains, and daggers, and too often he elaborated 
these unimportant details, and so spoiled the general effect. 
Moreover, as a rule, his miniatures are too large. He was 
fond of the very largest sized oval that was at that time 
in use, and he aimed too much at producing a finished 
picture rather than an adequate portrait. When to this 
we add the statement that he gave up some considerable 



time to copying in miniature large oil paintings, and that 
the chief commission that he ever received was to make 
miniature copies of a series of family portraits at Knole, 
it can well be believed that this work did not improve his 
skill in presenting a small and adequate portrait, but 
tended, by the production of elaborate copies of other 
work, to injure him in original work. 

He was born at Honiton. His mother was a lace worker 
who appears to have carried on an important business, and 
to have been fairly successful. The father was a member 
of a well-known Devonshire family, and Humphry' always 
took great interest in gathering up information respecting 
his ancestors, and in making use himself of the armorial 
achievements to which they were entitled. As a boy, he 
showed some considerable artistic skill, and his father was 
persuaded to send him up to London, where he studied for 
a while at Shipley's school in St. Martin's Lane. On the 
death of his father, he returned to Devonshire, and Mrs. 
Humphry hoped he would join her in the lace industry, and 
devote his talent for design to her assistance ; but Humphry- 
was not willing to do this, and, in 1762, he went to Bath, 
and was articled to Samuel Collins, the miniature painter. 
He boarded, in Bath, with Mrs. Linley, and made the 
acquaintance of her beautiful daughter, who afterwards 
became Mrs. Sheridan. There are interesting allusions to 
the various members of the Linley family to be found 
amongst his documents. 

When Collins came to grief, Humphry proceeded to 
London, and there had his celebrated interview with Sir 
Joshua Reynolds, and was persuaded by him to start on 
his own account as a painter. Reynolds encouraged him 
in his work, and lent him one of his own pictures to copy. 
Humphry then became a member of the Society of Artists, 
and decided that he would settle down in London. Before 
doing so, however, he went back again to Bath, came into 
intimate connection with Gainsborough, with whom he 


used to ride, and after making an interesting excursion to 
various places in the West and central parts of England, 
he came up finally to London, and took rooms at Covent 
Garden. One of his miniatures, exhibited in 1766, attracted 
the attention of the King, who purchased it, and then 
Humphry obtained commissions to paint portraits of the 
Queen, and of other members of the Royal Family. He 
had already made the acquaintance of George Romney, 
with whom he was to become particularly intimate, and 
it is probable that their studios were, at that time, adjacent 
to one another. The two men decided to \isit Italy in 
company, and they set out in 1773, journeying first of all 
to Knole, where they had some commissions to execute for 
the Duke of Dorset, in whose house they appear to have 
remained for some little time. They then went on to 
Rome and Florence, and Humphry studied in Italy till 
1777, when he was back again in London, having been 
preceded by Romney, who spent a far shorter time on the 
Continent than he did, and who was back on London in 
1775. It was on his return to London that Humphry made 
the acquaintance of Dr. Johnson, and some interesting 
letters then passed between the two men. 

In 1785, Humphry decided to leave England for India, 
having the desire to pass two or three years in that country, 
and if possible, to use his own words, " to acquire a com- 
petence which will give serenity to the thought of old age." 
He had heard a good deal from other artists, who had 
already " shaken the Pagoda-tree," of the success which had 
attended their efforts, and he went out in high spirits, 
expecting, not merely to gain the competence upon which 
he had set his heart, but to acquire a comfortable fortune. 
He was successful in his work in India, obtaining a great 
many commissions, but, unfortunately, some very large 
sums that were due to him from certain native princes 
were never paid, and the pleasure that Humphry derived 
from his sojourn in India was very much spoiled on account 


Plate XXVI. 



1. " Charles Lee, Lord Viscount Dillon of Ditchley, Oxford. 

2. " Marquis of Graham, Duke of Montrose." 

3. " Mrs. Nesbitt of Norwood Common 1770." 

4. " Mr. Hervey-Aston 1765." 

Above four from the Turner Collection. 

5. " A boy, name unknown." 

In the Collection of Dr. G. C. Williamson. 

N.B. — The inscriptions are as Humphry wrote them. 



of this difficulty. There are masses of papers still in 
existence which deal with this heavy debt, and detail the 
many efforts Humphry made to obtain its payment. On 
more than one occasion he could have had payment of 
the principal sum, but he was stubborn enough to insist 
also upon the interest, and by this insistence he lost all 
chance of obtaining the original amount. His health broke 
down in India, and he had to return to England in 1788. 
The voyage home was an uncomfortable one : he was 
disappointed at his lack of success, he had become more 
irritable, and, moreover, his eyesight, which later on was 
to cause him such grievous trouble as to oblige him to 
relinquish his artistic pursuits, was even then a source of 
considerable inconvenience. On his return to London, he 
took up craj'on painting, became a full member of the 
Academy in 179 1, and in 1792 was appointed a portrait 
painter in crayons to the King. By 1797, however, he 
had to give up his artistic work, his blindness having then 
increased to a very serious extent. He lived for some 
thirteen years longer, however, and died at his residence 
on March 9th, 1810. 

He is, perhaps, specially to be remembered at the present 
day by reason of the long and interesting lawsuit ^ that 
took place in 1917, concerning a picture which was at one 
time believed to represent Mrs. Siddons and Miss Kemble, 
and was attributed on circumstantial evidence to Romney, 
but which eventually proved to be a portrait of the Ladies 
Waldegrave, and the work of Ozias Humphry. Fortu- 
nately, Humphry's original signed sketch for the composi- 
tion of this picture had been preserved, and its production 
in court ^ settled a very complicated question, which had 
been a dispute for several months. 

Humphry had a natural son, one William Upcott, a 
well-known collector of books, MSS. and medals. He 

* Huntington v. Lewis and Simmons, May I5th-24th, 1917. 

* By the writer. 


inherited, from Humphry, a considerable number of 
unfinished miniatures and sketches both on paper and on 
ivory, and also whatever property Humphry possessed at 
his death, together with many sketch-books, and an 
extensive correspondence. By good fortune, Upcott pre- 
served, with the greatest care, the papers and docu- 
ments relating to Humphry's career, binding them up into 
various volumes, many of which form to-day part of the 
library of the Royal Academy. We are therefore in a 
position to know more of the inner life of this eighteenth- 
century artist than we do of many of his contemporaries.^ 
The documents revealed two interesting love stories, but 
did not show the artist in a verj' attractive guise. He was 
a man of fickle temperament, of somewhat miserly dis- 
position and of a fretful and irritable temper, with the 
result that he was disappointed almost throughout his 
career. The collection of unfinished miniatures which he 
bequeathed to Upcott came eventually into the possession 
of Mr. Hampden Turner, and from them we can form an 
adequate idea of Humphry's skill, and thus give him a 
higher position as a miniature painter than for some years 
he possessed. Differing from most painters, he gave 
attention to almost every branch of art ; some of his oil 
paintings are thoroughly satisfactory. In his crayon work, 
he took a high average. He drew skilfully in pencil, he 
attempted etching, water-colour painting, and even 
lithograph}^ but it is on his work as a miniature painter 
that his reputation will rest, and some of his finest works, 
especially those on a very small scale, are of extreme 
beauty, and great excellence. He left behind him great 
evidence of his industry, and his drawings, miniatures and 
paintings are to be found in many collections. 

As already mentioned, he was skilful in copying, in 
miniature form, family portraits in oil, and, for the Duke 

1 Vide "Ozias Humphrj"-, R.A.," by G. C. Williamson, 1918. 


of Dorset, he produced a long series of such works, which 
have now found a place in the collection of Mr. Pierpont 
Morgan. There arc many of his drawings in the British 
Museum, and in the possession of Mr. A. G. Fisher. One 
of his best crayon portraits is in the collection of the 
Gaekwar of Baroda, there are several portraits by him in 
the National Portrait Gallery, and five of his miniatures are 
in the collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor 
Castle, others at Welbeck Abbey, at South Kensington 
Museum, and in the collections of Lord Hothfield, Lord 
Powys, the Duke of Rutland, Lord Sackville, Earl Spencer 
and Mr. Francis Wellesley. One of his best oil paintings 
is at Berkeley Castle, and others are at Knole Park, at 
Greenwich Hospital and at Ickworth. There is one of his 
miniatures in the Holbume jVIuseum at Bath, another is 
owned by the Earl of Carlisle, one belongs to the Earl of 
Harewood, another to the Earl of Jersey, and there are 
two or three in my own collection. The bulk of his un- 
finished portraits, however, still remains in the possession 
of Mr. Hampden Turner, to whose ancestors it came, by 
bequest, from William Upcott. 

It may be well to draw the attention of the collector to 
one curious feature that is easily recognised in Humphry's 
miniatures. He had the habit of giving what a contem- 
porary critic called " greyhound-like eyes " to his sitters. 
Attention has already been directed to the fact that the 
eyes painted by Andrew Plimer were unusually large, some- 
what staring, and a little meretricious in their prominence. 
Humphry's work, on the other hand, is distinguished by 
entirely different characteristics. The eyes are long and 
narrow, a little inclined to resemble, in their extreme 
narrowness, those of an Oriental. It is not easy to explain 
exactly the way in which they differ from the eyes painted 
by many of his contemporaries, but if the collector gives 
some careful attention to the illustrations, notably those 
in colour, of various unfinished miniatures by Ozias Hum- 


phry, the characteristics will be readily noted, and this 
curious painting of the eye will be a help in distinguishing 
his work from that of any of his contemporari'.s. He 
appears seldom to have painted the eyes really wide open. 

There is a half sly look about them, w^hich gives a 
somewhat sleepy appearance to the faces of many of his 
women sitters. The backgrounds to his miniatures are 
usually dark, sometimes green or bro\\Ti or blue, but always 


inclining to the darker, denser shade of colour, and these 
are produced by somewhat elaborate stippling. He had 
a clever sense of composition, and, as a rule, the portraits 
are admirably set upon the ivory. They are very seldom 
full face, generally three-quarter, but very often in profile. 
The easiest way to detect them is by looking for the dreamy, 
sleepy look which marks them out from the work of any of 
his contemporaries. His best portraits are on an exceed- 
ingly small scale, and these are particularly well worth 
securing. Few artists of the day could surpass him in the 
rapidity with which he was able to obtain and preserve a 

A reproduction of his usual signature is given overleaf. 



WILLIAM WOOD was a popular miniature painter 
in the Eighteenth Century about whom 
hitherto very Uttle has been known, but who 
was responsible for, at least, 1,200 miniatures and also for 
many interesting drawings and water colours. 

He has been alluded to in several books of reference, 
and various statements have been made, some of them 
accurate and some based on erroneous information or 
confusion with someone else, wholly incorrect. Amongst 
those who have at times fallen a victim to inaccurate 
information I am bound to include myself, but I may 
add that I have always kno\vn that somewhere or other, 
in Suffolk, manuscripts concerning Wood were in existence, 
and I hoped some day to obtain and make use of them. 
Far and wide I made enquiries and was at length successful ; 
and now, as I possess definite information concerning Wood 
in his own handwriting, which has never before been pub- 
lished, it seemed well to take advantage of the appearance 
of this book, and give a chapter of almost wholly new 
material, upon a painter who deserves to be recognised. 
Moreover, from his four ledgers which are now in my 
possession, I have extracted a list of his sitters and it 
appears as an appendix to this book. Details of almost 
every portrait are carefully given by Wood, and to the 
ouTiers of any of the miniatures I shall be happy to supply 
the complete information which the artist has written down. 
In many instances it is full of interest. 



Wood kept his accounts with praiseworthy exactitude. 
He numbered his miniatures from 5,000 for the first 
miniature down to 6,211, the last he chronicles, and his 
drawings from 10,000 down to 10,149, the last mentioned, 
in his fourth volume. He worked from 1790 to 1808, 
and he describes in most instances the size of the miniature, 
the pigments he used in his preparation, the dates when he 
began and completed it, the price he was paid for it, and 
other details concerning its frame, the person to whom it 
was delivered, its condition and appearance in later years 
and so on. Moreover, in many instances, he attaches to 
the page a tracing of the actual portrait, so that identifica- 
tion is easy and certain. He prefaces his first ledger by 
drawings of the six sizes of ovals which he used ; they 
measure 2, 2j, 2^, 3, 3J, and 3f in length, and were called 
by him sizes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. He then alludes to certain 
abbreviations he uses. S. W., he says, is " a kind of white 
prepared from silver by Reeves." 

B.W. is a " white prepared from bismuth," and this he 
adds is " bad." 

F. W. is " the common flake white." 

O. W. " is another on a lead basis." 

C. W. " is common river water." 

D, W, " is distilled water." 

C. R. " is creamlets white, prepared by Mr, Turner of 
Millbank, on a lead basis but perfectly durable." 

He then adds " a sufficient quantity of gum is united 
with the colours, to make them bear out, and a twelfth 
of white sugar ca:ndy to make them work more freely." 
The other pigments to which he alludes are Reeves' Con- 
stant White, Gamboge, Madder Lake, Gardner's Brown, 
Prussian Blue, Bone Black, Scott's Cake Bistre, Black- 
man's WTiite, Blackman's carmine, Townsend's Puiple, 
Godfrey's Ultramarine, Mapoul's Vermilion, Bartram's 
Mineral Blue and Dragon's Blood. To some of these 
colours I make allusion in a later chapter. 


The first Miniature Wood recorded was " a copy from 
an old picture said to be a head of Ben Jonson ; in purple 
drapery and olive ground." This he says he painted for 
himself, in January, 1790. He left it with a Mr. More, he 
says, " for shew," fetched it back on March 4th, 1791, 
and then sent it to someone else. " The first miniature 
I ever painted," however, he numbered 5001, and says 
it was " a copy from Sir Joshua's portrait in a Classical 
Dress." This he also did in January, 1790, and presented 
it to Mr. John Kerby, of Stafford Street. Then followed 
three more copies from works by Reynolds, one of which 
he sent to Bristol, another to Champion's Library, Margate, 
and a third to Silver's Library, Margate, all "on shew." 
Two of these he re-touched, one in 1796 and the other in 
1799. He tells us of one of them that the coat was " in body 
colour, of Indian ink and silver white," and the curtbin 
in the background of " vermilion and Indian red glazed 
with lake and burnt umber," and that they all had " gum 
arable water passed over" them. There followed a por- 
trait of his sister in black drapery, " the lights scratched 
off with a point," which he sent to Bristol " on shew," 
where later on he obtained many commissions, and then 
came his first commission, a portrait of " Sir Jacob Woulfe 
in a dark coat with an olive background when about 60." 
He painted this on February nth, 1790, and was paid a 
guinea for it, and from that moment success appears to 
have been assured. In the same year for a portrait of Mr. 
Hodgitts, of Dudley, he had 2 guineas, but by September 
his price had gone up to 2^ and 3 guineas, and this seems 
to have been his fee until 1792, when it rose to 5 guineas. 
A little later on it was 7 guineas, and then 10, and in the 
last two years of which we have any records it varies from 
10 up to 15 guineas, according to size and subject, with 
an occasional 20 for a large drawing, but for ordinary 
miniatures, as distinct from drawings, does not appear 
to have ever exceeded 15 guineas. The interest of these 


books kept by Wood is twofold. From the artist's point 
of view it is instructive to learn his methods. For example 
of one (5402) he thus writes : 

" Col. J. Stuart, of 2nd Foot-guards, in uniform, averted 
eye, ultramarine in head, mineral blue in sky, Mapoul's 
vermilion in the coat. Facings and stock of Turner's new 
creamlet. Exhibited in 1797. Epaulet added to the left 
shoulder then. About 35, sixth size. Finished March i8th, 
1796. Delivered March 19th, 1796, £6 6s." 

We could hardly wish for fuller details. Of another, 
the entry reads thus (5429) : 

" Miss Fanny Lambton, of Charlton near Greenwich, in 
a white frock with pink sash. Right hand up. Dark 
curled hair and averted eye. Mapoul's white in eyes, 
ivory scraped and rubbed with cuttlefish bone, age about 
2, 7th size. Finished July 8th, 1796. Delivered on the 
15th, £8 8s." 

Sometimes no special colouring is noted, for example of 
a miniature still belonging to the Earl of Durham we read 
thus (5334) : 

" The two children of Mr. Lambton, of Durham, in one 
picture. Pink sashes ; the eldest standing and the youngest 
sitting on a bank, ages about 3 and 2. 8th size. Finished 
March 27th, 1795. Delivered 31st. £16 i6s. (being for 
two persons)." 

Similar entries give us various items of detached informa- 
tion, thus : " Dress of burnt carmine ; " " used a red 
behind the black drapery ; " " no vermilion, only a madder 
red ; " " much gum in the vermilion ; " " epaulet of 
King's yellow ; " " some gallstone in the hair ; " " gamboge 
in the flesh ; " " lace of coat brown ochre and King's 
yellow ; " " coat of indigo ; " " hair of Cologne earth ; " 
" ivory rubbed with garlick ; " " red in the dress of mixed 
Indian red and lake ; " " Tow:isend's purple for the dress ; " 
"coat umber and creamlet;" "dress Reeves' constant 
white ; " while to add to the importance of all this, we have 


many entries by him, recording how the colours have stood. 
Of a miniature painted in 1796, of Mr, Charles Pepys, of 
Wimpole Street, in a blue coat, he wrote later on thus : 

" In January, 1800, examined this and found the ivory 
green in its hue, which I attribute to the garlick, the white 
perfect, no injury from touches of gum arabic on the hair. 
B's carmine has faded, but the madder and vermilion 
prevent its being discovered by other than my own eyes." 

Again, of one done in 1798 he writes : 

" Examined it in May, 1802, and did not discover any 
bad effect from the gum employed. The hair and general 
colouring has remained dark and glossy." 

Of another he writes : "I found it had acquired a kind of 
insipid fogginess, indeed there was a little mildew on its 
surface, both of which I attribute to my ha\'ing breathed 
upon it when I painted it. Glazed the dark parts with 
very thin and pure gum arabic." Of the changes in re- 
spect to other colours he writes thus : " Townsend's purple 
had become cold and blue ; " " mineral blue has faded ; " 
" Reeves' white is quite permanent ; " " the madder red 
is not good ; " " the carmine has become brownish ; " 
" the lake on the waistcoat has stood perfectly ; " " de- 
cided in future not to breathe on my work ; " " Soaked 
the ivory in alum water but find no special benefit there- 
from ; " " White sugar cand3^ is better than gum ; " " The 
constant white and the madder red have stood well ; " 
and so on. 

In later years, he took to referring to his colours by 
numbers, but as the volumes do not contain a key to these 
numbers, his notes, which grow fuller and fuller in detail 
as they go on, cease to have the special artistic value which 
those on earlier pages possess. He also records the fact 
that he has made many experiments, thus : " Put yellow 
paper behind the head ; " " put silver leaf behind the 
face ; " " polished the ivory with rust ; " or " with glass 
paper," or " with cuttlefish bone," or " with sandpaper," 


or "on my hand." Again, to continue this phase of 
interest, he speaks of destroying certain miniatures in 
which the pigments have not stood and of painting others 
for his chents in their place, although such entries only 
happen in the first early j^ears. He often tells us, moreover, 
later on in his ledgers how he altered miniatures ; for 
example, on the portrait of Mrs. Hyde, late of Bengal, 
daughter of Lady Frances Seymour, painted in 1797, he 
writes : " In April, 1801, I removed Hair from the neck 
and threw a furred satin cloak over the left arm." To 
Col. Nightingale's miniature he added "a cross belt." 
On the one of Mr. Bourchier, of Harley Street, late of 
Bombay, he substituted " a dark brown coat " for the 
" light coat ; " on that of Mr. Glennies, of Mincing Lane, he 
" exposed the ear." On Captain Smith's he altered the 
uniform, "he being now a Colonel," while on Sir John 
Stuart's he " removed the Star and Crescent and added 
the Ribband and Star of the Bath." 

This last entry brings us to the personal interest of many 
of the entries, as apart from the artistic. He speaks of 
" Meridith Townsend, of Fairford," "late dissenting Min- 
ister at Stoke Newington," as " his uncle." Of Mr. Kelly 
in "a buff waistcoat and blue coat about 60 " as the 
"Doorkeeper of the House of Commons." Of a Mr. 
Stubble as the artist " who helped me paint this." Of 
Sir William Lemon, whose portrait he executed in August, 
1798, " shooting himself in the following March," Of 
Abraham Newland, whose portrait he did in 1791, being " of 
The Bank," he being in fact the person who signed the 
bank-notes of the day, and of whom it used to be said 
that although a person might " sham Abram," he dared 
not "sham Abraham Newland." ^ He refers to the por- 

^ Abraham Newland, one of the most famous Chief Cashiers the 
Bank ever had. Newland is said to have composed an epitaph for 
himself in these terms : 

Beneath this stone old Abraham lies, 
Nobody laughs and nobody cries. 



traits of the Misses Dash wood as being painted " at 
Wooton." Of that of Mr. Josiah Thomas, of Bristol, 
having been " presented to his child, my God-daughter, 
iEtat 20." Mrs. Sampson, of Blackheath, he describes as 
the wife of Captain Sampson, of the Earl St. Vincent East 
India Co., Captain Butler as " brother to the Earl of 
Ormond, and in the 14th Light Dragoons," Mrs. Browne 
as " now living with Major Thornton," Lord Edward 
Fitzgerald (a miniature now at Maynooth) as " brother 
to the Duke of Leicester, and copied from a bad crayon 
picture." Of Miss Barnard, whose portrait he painted 
at the request of a Mr. Hicks, and for him, he mentions 
that she was Mrs. Hicks when she sat for him much later 
on. Mr. Holmes he describes as sub-Dean to the Chapel 
Royal, St. James', Master Norman he declares was the son 
of Lady Elizabeth Norman, and grandson of the Duchess 
of Rutland, who brought the child for his portrait and 
" paid for it." In this way he fills his pages \vith odd 
scraps of personal information, of peculiar interest in trac- 
ing the miniatures and of great value to the descendants 
of those who sat to him. There are numerous instances 
in which whole families are recorded, and his pages refer 
to engagements, to marriages and to babies, linking up 

Where he has gone and how he fares. 
No one knows and no one cares. 
It was of him that Dibdin wrote : 

There ne'er was a name so bandied by fame, 

Through air and through ocean or through land, 
As one that is wrote upon every bank-note. 
And you all must know Abraham Newland. 
O, Abraham Newland ! 
Notorious Abraham Newland! 
I've heard people say " Sham Abram you may, 
But you mustn't sham Abraham Newland." 
On his retirement in 1807, Newland refused a pension, but accepted 
a service of plate valued at ;^i,ooo. He died in the following year, 
leaving legacies to many of his old colleagues. For a quarter of a 
century he never slept outside the Bank. Romney painted a 
portrait of him when he was a young man. It is now in a collec- 
tion in Bristol. 


one portrait with another in interesting fashion. Further- 
more he mentions several other artists, as we find him 
engaged in copjdng other portraits in miniature. In 
1791 he copied a miniature by George Engleheart of a lady. 
In 1794 one by Cosway belonging to Mrs. Wood and one 
painted in oil by Smart of Mr. Watts, of Bengal. The 
miniature of Mr. Sparkes, deceased, of Blackheath, was, he 
says, by Mr. Humphries (sic), and was brought to him in 
1793 to be copied, and miniatures by Robinson, of Dublin, 
Trumbull, Plimer, of Captain Robertson; Miss Fouldstone, 
afterwards Mrs. Mee ; of Col. Keppel and John Downman, 
all came under his attention. Moreover, he tells us that 
he copied in miniature a crayon picture by Russell, of the 
late Miss Knight, of Brompton, and two oil portraits by 
Dance, one representing Mrs. Fenwick, also one in oil by 
Trumbull of Col. Lawrence at the surrender of Charles 
Town, and one in pencil and colour by Downman of the 
late Mr. Way, of Richmond Green, " for the Cambridges." 
Of the man himself we glean but little from his ledgers, 
except perhaps a sense of satisfaction in his neatness, 
precise habits, caution, and his love of examining his 
miniatures in later years to see how they have stood, and 
to record in his pages his impressions concerning them. 
We know that he wore a blue coat with a red collar and a 
straw-coloured waistcoat, because he painted his own 
portrait in that attire more than once. We find that he 
journeyed to Bristol in 1791, and again in 1803, and that 
he was in Gloucester in 1798. In these places he had many 
clients, and his pages abound in allusions to Bristol mer- 
chants and their families. There should be a goodly 
proportion of his miniatures to be found in that Western 
city. We gather that he was a somewhat vain man, as he 
often painted his own portrait, and as often destroyed it, 
" not being really like," or " not true in likeness and colour- 
ing." We know that he was born at Ipswich in 1768, 
or at least either in the town or near to it, and he is declared 


to have come from an old Suffolk Catholic family and to 
have been specially welcomed in Catholic circles. As to 
this part of the story I have my doubts, as there are no 
Petres, Traffords, Blounts, Throgmortons, Holdens (of 
Lancashire), Ropers, Towneleys, or any other notable 
Catholic names amongst his sitters, and I believe in this 
he has been confused with another artist, but the tradition 
may be a tnie one, and it certainly has some evidence 
in support of it, and there certainly are Jeminghams 
amongst his sitters. 

Of his skill there is evidence in the fact that he exhibited 
year after year in the Royal Academ3^ and as he has 
recorded the names of the portraits he sent in his ledgers 
they supply many that are missing in the Academ}- Cata- 
logues where his exhibits are chronicled. In some instances 
Wood's statement falls short of what the Academy Cata- 
logues set forth, and either he has not noted down all the 
portraits he sent in, or he sent in some later on, after he 
had prepared his notes and his lists. The Academy Cata- 
logues abound in allusions to a portrait of a lady or a 
gentleman, wthout name, or refer to a frame \nth say 
five or seven portraits in it, and many of these anonymous 
works can be named from Wood's ledgers. Of 107 of 
his works noted in the Royal Academy Catalogues only 
sixteen have names attached to them, but many of the 
rest can now be identified. 

To the Royal Academy of 1788 he is declared to have 
sent in a portrait of " a lady " which was certainly not a 
miniature, as his first was not painted till 1790, according 
to his own statement. There is no initial given to the 
Wood who appears in this entry, and who was then residing 
in Knightsbridge, and I have the gravest doubt as to 
whether the entry refers to our artist. It is much more 
likely to refer to another person of the same name. 

His exhibits in 1791, when the entry certainly refers to 
William Wood, were of Mr. Jackson, of Chancery Lane 


(5058), and of Abraham Newland, of the Bank (5062), 
and this latter miniature on its return to the Academy he 
altered, at the request of Mrs. Comthwait, who was, I 
believe, Newland's niece and for whom he painted it, 
putting on, says he, "a new coat of cream and a yellow 
waistcoat." He also sent in portraits of Dr. James Wright, 
of the East Indies (5049), James Sumner, Esq., of Hamp- 
stead (5050), Mr. Campbell, of Argyle Street, nephew to 
the Duke of Argyle and late of the Guards {5059), and of 
Colonel Small of the 84th Foot (5065). Wood was then 
living at 30, St. James's Place, The Academy Catalogue 
mentions that he exliibited six portraits that year, and 
these are the names of all the sitters. To the Exhibition 
of 1792 he sent in the portrait of Mr. Kelly, Doorkeeper 
of the House of Commons (5120), his own portrait, " the 
summit of my own corporeal parts," he grandly styles it 
(5126), a fancy dress portrait of a female in a white turban 
(5138), Mr. Stuart M. Eraser, of Bombay {5139), a portrait 
of his father (5140), and one of Sir William Skeftington, 
of Skeffmgton, Leicestershire (5142). The Royal Academy 
Catalogue for that year only chronicles live, but \\''ood 
writes in his ledger that he sent in six. 

In the following year his exhibits were a portrait of his 
sister in a white dress (5158), of Mr. Allen (5188), of Master 
W. Gilpin, of Paddington (5207), of Mrs. Lindsell, of Wim- 
pole Street (5208), of Mr. John Parker, of St. Paul's Church- 
yard {5213), and of an anonymous lady painted for Mr. 
Sheriff (5216). The year 1794, in which for the first time 
he fastened a tracing of a miniature into his ledgers, is 
notable for the fact that he painted four eyes of Lady 
William Kussell to be set as rings (5314), and to the Academy 
he forwarded portraits of Miss King, of Portland Street 
(5256), Miss Reeves, of Hadley (5262), his own sister again 
(5266), Col. Small, in full Highland uniform (5276), another 
portrait of himself (5277), one of Mr. Comberbach, of Craven 
Street (5285), and a drawing in pencil 3i by 5 inches of 


Mr. Thomas Bartley, of The Temple, with the head and 
hands tinted, 10009. I* was in this year that he painted 
two groups of the Lambton children (5334), and a drawing 
of the eye of one of them for a ring (5332). He then was 
living at 8, Cork Street. The Academy catalogues refer 
to eleven exhibits that year, but Wood, it will be seen, 
notes down only seven. Perhaps the Lambton miniatures 
were sent in late. 

To the Exhibition of 1795 we have but one allusion in 
Wood's ledgers, and that is to a portrait of Mr. Benion of 
Wroxham (5336), although the Royal Academy Catalogues 
tell us that he sent in five anonymous works. We possess 
the complete list, however, for 1796. It was composed 
of portraits of Mrs. George Cambridge, of Twickenham 
(5363), Mr. Charles Pepys, of Wimpole Street (5384), Mrs. 
Evans, of Willingdon (5389), Major Davis of the 93rd 
(5390), Mr. Mann, of the Royal Artillery (5397), Mr. Riggs, 
of Russell Place (5405), and a third portrait of his own 
sister (5409). This last portrait he sent in again to the 
Academy in the following year and with it portraits of 
Col. James Stuart, of the 2nd Foot-guards (5402), Miss 
Knipe, of Limpsfield (5436), Mr. George Herbert, of ist 
Life-guards (5468), Mrs. Jones (5470), Mr. Charles Ri\ang- 
ton, of Southgate (5482), and Miss Taylor {5486). The 
Royal Academy Catalogue gives seven entries, Wood 
alludes to all of them. There is a longer list of exhibits 
for 1798, including portraits of Master Thomas Stopford, 
of Sloane Street (5503), the Hon. Charlotte Augusta Keppel, 
of Pall Mall (5505), " Shaick Emaun Bux, a Bengal Con- 
sumah, in white muslin with a scarlet turban "^ (55ii), 
Miss Watts, afterwards Mrs. Adam Gordon (5524), Mrs. 
Francis Henderson, of Ealing (5525), Mr. James Watts 
{5546), Cynthia, " a fancy head, surrounded by floating 

* This man was Khansamah, butler to Lord Mornington, after- 
wards Marquis Wellesley, who embarked for India at Cowes on 
November 8th, 1797.- Evidently the man came to England and sat 
for his portrait, as Wood was never in India. 


clouds," which Wood exhibited in 1807 at the British 
Institution, and eventually sold to Mr. Chamberlayne, of 
Southampton (5565), and Mr. William Abington, of East 
India House, which he gave to his sister on her marriage 
to that gentleman on April 20th, 1799 (5567). In 1799, 
the Academy Catalogue gives seven exhibits, and Wood 
refers to all of them. The portraits he chronicles are those 
of Mr. Munden, of Co vent Garden Theatre (5539), Mr. 
William Ramsay, Secretary to the East India Company 
(5595), Miss Maria Holmes, of Westcombe Park, Green- 
wich (5616), Admiral Cumming, of Greenwich (5622), Miss 
Letitia Knox, of Soho Square (5628), Mr. John Dougan, of 
Welbeck Street (5635), and Mr. Jefferies, of Basinghall 
Street (5656). The 1800 Exhibition had seven exhibits 
from Wood, which included a second portrait of Miss 
Watts, of Hollis Street, as by then she had become Mrs. 
Adam Gordon (5513), and others of Mr. George Billings- 
hurst, of the 7th Dragoons (5697), Mr. John Vaux, of Austin 
Friars (5709), (misprinted Vair in the Royal Academy 
Catalogue), Mrs. Campbell as " The Circassian," in a white 
dress with a large turban, and in which Wood says for 
experiment sake all the colours were worked with pure 
distilled vinegar instead of with water, and a new Chinese 
lead colour used for the whites of the costume (571 1), Lt.- 
Col. Crewe, of Crewe Hall, Norfolk (5723), a Chinese man, a 
servant to Mr. Hobson of the East Indiaman Armiston, whose 
own portrait Wood had painted in 1798 (5727), and Mr. 
Keighly, of Hertford Street, Mayfair, whom Wood says 
had a "glowing and healthy complexion " (5730). 

There was only one exhibit in 180 1 as far as the books 
record, a portrait of Miss Sarah Ann Acraman, of Bristol. 
In the carelessly compiled Royal Academy Catalogue, this 
is called a portrait of " a young gentleman." By 1802, 
however, when Wood was back again in London, the 
numbers mounted up. In that year we find he exhibited 
portraits of Mr. Fletcher, son of Sir H. Fletcher, of Cumber- 


land (5756), Master Lewis Way, of Richmond Green, com- 
missioned, he records, by "the Cambridges" and mounted 
by " Gray of Sackville Street," the boy who afterwards 
became first a barrister and then an EngUsh Protestant 
minister in Paris, especially interested in the conversion of 
Jews (5780) ; Mr. Joseph Clay, of Old Broad Street (5787), 
three children of the Acraman family as cherubs, a very 
successful portrait which in 1807 he exhibited again at the 
British Institution (5793), Miss Ann Captal, of Bruton 
Street (so far as the name can be made out in Wood's 
ledger) (5843), Mr. J. D. Paul, of The Strand, Banker ^ 
(afterwards the notorious Sir J. Dean Paul, of Strahan) 
Paul and Bates, who failed in 1856, having been found 
guilty of fraud, and who were all sent to penal servitude 
(5863), and Mr. Robert Jackson, of Earl Street, Blackfriars, 
a portrait which Wood mentions was handsomel}' set by 
the Crown jewellers Rumbell and Bridge (5900). 

The Royal Academy catalogues refer to a portrait of a 
Miss Menage, a dancer, " in her celebrated hornpipe," 
but this I feel quite sure must have been exhibited by 
another artist named Wood. 

In 1803 there were five exhibits according to Wood's 

ledgers, a miniature of a Mr. Miller, of America (5821), \\ith 

which Wood was dissatisfied, three other miniatures and 

a drawing. The portrait of Miller, Wood retained when it 

came back from the Academy, and painted a fresh one 

from it for his client. The drawing was on vellum in black 

lead with chalk, and measured 11^ inches by 8J inches. 

It represented Mrs. Robert Bristow, of Great Queen Street, 

Westminster. He regarded it as a very happy effort, 

and made a charming sketch of it against the entry in his 

ledger. Its number was 10045. The Royal Academy 

Catalogue refers specially to the portrait of the lady. The 

other three miniatures were portraits of Lt.-Col. Dj'ke, 

* The Bank was at the Golden Anchor in the Strand and was 
eventually taken over by the London and Westminster. 


of the Coldstream Guards (5936), Mrs. Cresswell (Letitia), of 
Duke Street, Manchester Square (5944), and Mrs. Cooke 
(5967). Three miniatures are referred to in connection 
with the Academy of 1804, the portrait of Miss Johnston 
(6052), wearing a necklace, painted in distilled vinegar, 
and those of Mr. Hummell, jun. (a musician) (6020), and 
of Capt. Stirling, of the Foot-guards (6038). In the follow- 
ing year the Academy Catalogue states that Wood exhibited 
five portraits. He records them as portraits of Miss 
Williams, commissioned by Capt. Birch (5804), a Mr. W. 
Williams, of the East Indiaman Warley, a sitter who had 
sat to Wood t^vice before (5970), Capt. Hood, of the Third 
Life-guards, grandson to Lord Hood, which was commis- 
sioned, Wood tells us, by Lady Hammond (6044), Maj.- 
Gen. Sir John Stuart (6073), and Mrs. Hay Drummond, 
of Hadleigh (6080). 

For 1806 there are no exhibits at all, but Wood sent in 
three miniatures and three drawings in 1807. The minia- 
tures were those of Mr. Thompson, dentist, of George Street, 
Hanover Square (6112), Miss Smith (6126), and Mrs. 
Benjamin Wyatt, of Buckingham Street, Fitzroy Square 
(6136). The drawings were portraits of Lady Hartwell, 
wife of Sir F. Hartwell, Bart., which was presented to her 
son, Houblon Hartwell, on July 4th, 1806, and engraved 
by Evans in 1809 (10083), a drawing on thick Bristol 
board ; one of Miss Anna Phipps, of Cork Street, when 
about four years old, on yellowish vellum, which Wood 
gave to her brother Wathem Phipps, who was his godson, 
on January loth, 1807, and whose portrait at the age of 
3^ he painted a httle later as a companion work (10090), 
and a head only of Mr. Robert Cockerell, of Westbourne 
House, Paddington, on Bristol paper (10093). This was 
the last year in which Wood exhibited at the Roya 
Academy, but to an exhibition in Brook Street, in 1808, 
he sent in three miniatures and five drawings. The 
miniatures were those of Miss Sophia Simpson, of John 


Street, aged 21, on dark opaque ivory (6169), of His Roya' 
Highness the Duke of Gloucester in General's uniform, 
commissioned by Sir William Bcechey, after his large por- 
traits of the prints (6189), and of Captain Richard Peirson, 
of the Royal Navy, son, he says, of the late Sir R. Peirson, 
and who had sat to him already in 1805 ori a commission 
from Miss Peirson (6205). 

The drawings were as follows : Cupid reading, in a 
Landscape. A whole length on Bristol stamped paper 
with Galliards crayons, stumped on, usual miniature 
water-colours and red and black chalk pencils, a drawing 
8| in. X 11^ in. on which Wood says he inscribed " Mon 
grand ami " in " allusion to the number of sitters produced 
by Love," and of which he was very proud (10023), Two 
heads of the Misses Gordon, of Harley Street, aged 6 and 
5, which he did for himself on thick Bristol paper (10092), 
a finished drawing of his design for a Pyramid, to illus- 
trate his Essay on Sepulchral Monuments which was 
engraved by Moses to illustrate the Essay and was drawn 
on Winchester's imitation of Dutch cartridge (10108), 
a portrait of Miss Brooke, of Cork Street, at the age of 24, 
done on tragacanth'd Bristol card and for which she sat 
at his particular request (10 102), and finally a drawing 
of a head of Dr. Clarke, of New Burlington Street, on white 
vellum (10096). 

The Exhibition at 20, Lower Brook Street, Grosvenor 
Square, was in connection with a Society of Associated 
Artists in Water-colour of which Wood was the founder, 
and for which he acted as President for one year only, 
being succeeded to the Chair by David Cox. It was a 
short-lived effort to unite Miniature Painters with those 
who practised the comparatively new art of Water-colour 
Painting ; and although it lasted but some five years, it yet 
prepared the way for the Water-colours Society, which 
followed it, and which eventually became known as the 
Old Water-colour Society. 


Its second Exhibition was at loi, New Bond Street, 
and Benjamin West was the guest of honour at the opening 
dinner at the Portland Coffee House. The third and fourth 
and fifth Exhibitions were at 16, Old Bond Street, and then 
the Society collapsed. Andrew Roberts had been its 
secretary, and Wood was spoken of in its minutes as that 
" worthy and indefatigable gentleman " to whom the 
Society owed " its very existence," but he had passed 
away before the Society got into difficulties, and was there- 
fore spared the misery of seeing his pet creation disappear. 

In this same year Wood published his Essay on National 
and Sepulchral Monuments, now a very rare book, and in 
the following year, that is to say on November 15th, 1809, 
he died at the early age of 41. He was therefore only 19 
when he commenced to paint miniatures, and he must have 
led a most industrious life to produce all the portraits 
which are carefully chronicled. From 1807 he appears to 
have taken greater interest in water-colour drawing than 
in miniature portraits, and the works of his latest two years 
are entirely landscapes. In March, 1809, he was in North- 
em Wales, hard at work sketching, and he chronicles, in 
most painstaking manner, exactly how he prepared 23 
drawings which represent the most important places and 
the most picturesque scenes in that country. Then on 
returning to London he was attracted by lithography, 
" drawing in chalk or pen and ink on stone," as he calls it, 
and produced two works representing Two Choristers, 
impressions of which he distributed to 33 friends and 
carefully notes down their names. The list includes 
Princess Elizabeth, Mr. Caleb Whitefoorde, Sir John Stuart, 
Lady Sophia Grey, Mr. Cambridge, and Miss Lushington. 
P'inally, at the end of his life he interested himself in 
planning and laying out gardens and parks, and the last 
entry in his book is a plan for the Tower Bank and Shrub- 
bery at Shrubland Park, which he had commenced to plan 
in 1807, and about which he has left a lengthy and instruc- 


live essay in manuscript. His notes on his water-colour 
work are marked with the same precision and allusion to 
pigments as characterise his miniatures, and there is no 
doubt he was a careful and methodical man in every 
respect, as well as an artist of no mean repute, as his draw- 
ings and miniatures remain to testify. Into whose hands 
his ledgers fell after his decease, I am unable to state, but 
the owner was evidently a personal friend, because there is 
a note in the final volume, in that person's handwriting, 
stating that at Wood's request he had selected one of his 
drawings as a memento, and had picked out the drawing of 
the Pyramid (10108), which was used to illustrate the 
Essay, as a worthy remembrance of his departed friend. 
Two of Wood's miniature portraits are in the possession 
of the Earl of Dysart at Ham House, three are in America, 
in the Pierpont Morgan collection, one in Lincoln in the 
Ward Usher collection,^ one of his drawings belongs to 
the King's at W'indsor Castle, another is the property of the 
nation, at South Kensington. A few other miniatures by 
him are known in various collections, but the bulk of his 
work has not hitherto been identified. Many of his por- 
traits are no doubt attributed to the wrong artist, and it 
will be interesting for the collector, to whom this book is 
addressed, to find out the miniatures that Wood painted, 
and to gather up information concerning them. 

One of the very few contemporary references to \\'ood 
occurs in a letter written by Frances Lady Jerningham, 
who was one of the daughters and heirs of Edward Sul\'ard, 
of Haughley in Suffolk, in 1800, in which, after mentioning 
that George Jerningham's \rife Fanny was sitting for her 
picture to Hoppner, she adds : " \^'ood the miniature painter 
has done her also for me tolerably well. It is very difficult 
to make a good picture of so handsome a person. There 
is certainly no woman in town so handsome as she is, 

^ Called a portrait of Abdul Khan and dated 1799. There must 
surely be some other name to follow Abd, ul = " Slave of the " ? 


Miss Jennings the celebrated beauty not excepted. She 
has her health much better since she has been in town, and 
will return here (that is to Costessey) in the autumn to 
lie in." 

Wood's ledgers give us the information concerning the 
portrait in question, and they also add the fact that the 
same painter copied in miniature the painting which 
Hoppner had executed in oil. The first miniature was 
begun on May 19th, 1800, and was finished on June 20th. 
It was quite a large miniature, painted with what \\'ood 
called " the averted eye." He says that she had " a cool- 
toned brunette complexion," that there was a good deal 
of red in the picture, that she had dark hair, and that the 
lady wore a wreath, by which no doubt it could be identi- 
fied, as it is not one of the portraits of which Wood gives a 
tracing. At the back of it, in order to increase the effect, 
he put a piece of what he calls " warm white paper." He 
had nine guineas for the portrait. The copy after Hoppner 
was No. 822, and was begun on February 27th, 1801, 
finished on March loth, and delivered and paid for on the 
28th. The price he obtained for it was eight guineas. 

It was an equally large miniature to the other one, and 
the lady, who on this occasion he declared to have had 
brown hair, and a fine clear complexion, was dressed in 
loose yellow drapery. She had evidently very beautiful 
eyes, because he refers with particular care to the efforts 
he made and the pigments he used in order to present a 
truthful representation of these special features of her face. 
He regarded the miniature as a strong one, and said that 
it had to be painted on ivory very highly polished in order 
to produce the effect. The background to it was composed 
of black and gamboge, and as it was a copy of an oil paint- 
ing, all the colours were richly treated with gum. 



IT would be impossible in such a book as this to refer 
even to a tithe of the miniature painters who exhibited 
at the Royal Academy in the eighteenth century. 
Their works may very likely constitute the greater part 
of the amateur collector's possessions, and where he is 
able to identify the signature or initials, he will have to 
look up the history of the painter, in question, in the various 
books of reference. Thus he will find whether the artist 
exhibited at the Royal Academy, and trace his exhibits, 
in the hope of discovering the special portrait amongst 
them, or will investigate the various miniature painters 
whose initials may correspond to those on the portrait 
he has purchased, to ascertain who was responsible for 
that particular picture. Where the miniature has no 
signature nor initials, and there is no clue to its identity 
to be discovered from the paper at its back, then he will 
have to content himself with taking the advice of those 
qualified to assist him, or form on his own judgment an 
opinion as to the artist, although he must heed not to be 
too emphatic if there be any doubt whatever as to the cor- 
rectness of his attribution. The lives of all the principal 
painters are described in the various books of reference on 
the subject, and much information, often very brief and 
scrappy, concerning the lesser known men can be obtained 
from the dictionaries of artists, and similar books ; but in 
its early days the Academy was full of the work of various 



miniature painters, some of whom can be identified, and 
many are wholly unknown, and it will be impossible, save 
in a book of very large proportions, to deal, even in 
the briefest possible fashion, with more than a small 
proportion of them. There are perhaps about half a 
dozen who ought to be singled out for special reference, 
prominent among whom is Samuel Shelley. A miniature 
by this painter realised, quite recently, a record price, 
fetching nearly six hundred pounds at Christie's. No 
portrait by Shelley has hitherto ever reached a sum even 
approximating to that price. This happened to be a very 
remarkable work, perhaps the best he ever painted, and 
there was a great demand for it on the part of several col- 
lectors. Shelley's best miniatures almost always represent 
groups. He certainly did paint single portraits, and some- 
times quite well : one of the Marchioness of Thomond is a 
charming little portrait, but his best represent two or more 
persons, and generally, a mother and child. 

He was a Londoner, born in Whitechapel in 1750, the 
son of a shoemaker, and was mainly self-educated. He 
gained a premium in the Society of Arts in 1770, but he went 
to no art school save, to use his own words, " the one which 
every man may attend who studies good pictures." He 
exhibited about 140 works at the Royal Academy, became 
a well-known man, and was responsible for the formation 
of the Society of Painters in Water-colours, the first meet- 
ing of which was held at his own house. He was possessed 
of a somewhat irritable temperament, and, after being 
associated with the Society he had founded, was concerned 
in the formation of a rival Society. He was keen-eyed, a 
bright and rather amusing man, a good singer, and one who 
could tell a good story, and in consequence was very popu- 
lar. His work and his fees steadily increased, and from 
Whitechapel he migrated to more and more aristocratic 
positions, coming at last to settle down in George Street, 
Hanover Square, where he died in 1808. 


Plaxe XXVII. 


-Sketch in water-colour on ivory for a portrait in pastel of George IV 
when Prince Regent. By John Russell, R.A. (1745- 1806). 
Collection of Dr. G. C. Wilhamson. 





His miniatures have one curious characteristic. He 
frequently used the ovals lengthwise, so that his miniatures 
can be recognised in the cabinet by the mere appearance 
of their position and shape, lying on their side, as it were, 
rather than erect upon the major axis of the ellipse. His 
colouring was on the pale side, quiet, grey and hght, but 
many of his groups are really delightful. 

The man who was the first to exliibit miniatures at the 
Royal Academy was an artist named Scouler, who has 
only recently become well known. His miniatures are 
always small — indeed, exceedingly minute — and are often 
very beautiful. He one day produced a sketch of George HI. 
on his own thumb-nail, when at the theatre. He painted 
his own portrait several times on very small pieces of 
ivory, and he is also known for a notable portrait of Lady 
Mary Wortley Montagu in my own collection. 

Another painter who should be mentioned was the 
quarrelsome Nathaniel Hone, a passionate man, who got 
into serious difficulties with the Royal Academy on account 
of his painting called " The Conjuror," which was supposed 
to be an attack upon the personal character of Angelica 
Kauffmann, and so, indirectly, upon Sir Joshua Reynolds, 
who was much attached to that fair artist. The Royal 
Academy insisted upon the removal of the work, and, 
subsequently, Hone opened an exhibition at 70, St. Martin's 
Lane — the first one-man show of which we have any 
references — ^and produced a special catalogue,^ which he 
sold himself. In it, he gives in detail the whole story ; 
copies the letters he received from Angelica Kauffmann and 
from the authorities of the Royal Academy ; gives his 
own explanation ; and appeals to the public to do him 
justice. At this exhibition, he exhibited many of his 
portraits, but after it was all over, he made up the quarrel 
with the Academy, and continued to exhibit there down to 

^ In the writer's possession is the painter's own copy. 



the time of his death, which occurred in 1784, in his 
sixty-seventh year. 

Another notable man was Jeremiah Meyer, who, in paint- 
ing his miniatures, was fond of a pecuHarly cold shade of 
blue, by which sometimes his works can be recognised. 
He was a Wiirtemberg man, and came to England when he 
was fourteen. He was, for a while, a pupil of Zincke, 
who received £200 for two years' training, then he worked 
for a little time in Reynolds' studio, and in 1763 became 
naturalised, later on being appointed miniature painter 
to the Queen, and then enamel painter to the King. He 
is rather well remembered by reason of his daughter, 
Mary Meyer. She was a very popular girl, although very 
much of a tomboy. She it was who, when sitting to Sir 
Joshua, managed to rip up, rather cleverly, the seams of 
a large pillow of feathers on which the President was in 
the habit of reclining, and, in consequence, when he 
suddenly sat down to rest and to judge of the effect of 
the picture he had been painting, he was covered with 
feathers, which clung to his velvet jacket in all directions. 
Mary Meyer's father, who was present, is said to have 
been extremely angry, and to have attempted immediate 
corporal punishment, but the girl, who was very pretty 
and amusing, was rescued from her father's hands by the 
President, who declared that it was only the act of a 
mischievous kitten. On another occasion, this same 
yoimg lady, dressed up in male costume, stopped a solitary 
rider on Hounslow Heath, demanding his purse. Unluckily, 
the man she accosted happened to be George Engleheart, 
the miniature painter, who knew her parents well, and 
he took possession of her, and, making her ride pillion 
behind him, handed her back to the care of her 

Bogle was another notable man, who painted extremely 
beautiful miniatures. He is called by Cunningham " a 
little, lame man, very poor, very proud, and very singular." 


His works are exquisitely modelled, with exceedingly 
minute handling. 

Horace Hone, who was Nathaniel Hone's nephew, 
■vras also a skilful miniature painter. 

James Nixon founded his work upon that of Reynolds, 
and his miniatures show striking resemblances to those 
of the great President. 

John Donaldson was an eccentric and extraordinary 
Scotsman, a chemist, a vegetarian, a poet and a preacher. 
His work can often be distinguished by eccentricities in 
colouring, which make it different from that of any other 
artist of the day. 

J. Hill, about whom we know very little, was capable 
at times of superb work. One of his miniatures, in Lord 
Hothfield's collection, representing the first Lord Gwydyr 
in a scarlet coat with gold buttons, is as fine a portrait 
as any miniaturist of the day was able to produce, but 
Hill was a very unequal artist, and seldom worked up to 
that high level. 

William Grimaldi, a member of the great Genoese 
family of dei Grimaldi, was miniature painter to George IV., 
but was especially renowned for his work in enamel, 
which was of unusual excellence. He produced a great 
many miniatures, many quite agreeable and well painted. 

W. S. Lethbridge, who as a lad was apprenticed to a 
house painter, and later on studied at the Academy 
School, was a very skilful painter, and was responsible 
for a well-known portrait of Dr. Wolcot (Peter Pindar). 

Amongst Irish artists, Walter and Charles Robertson 
were capable of exceedingly good work. They were the 
sons of a Dublin jeweller, who was noted for producing 
elegant designs in hair, and even likenesses in that some- 
what unpromising material. Other Irish painters were 
John Comerford, who was perhaps the best of the Irish 
school ; and Bull, who was a student of the Dublin 
Society's schools. 


Plate XXVIII. 

1. The Artist's nephew. By William Singleton (Fl. 1770-1790). 

Exhibited at the R.A. in 1787. Signed. 
Formerly in the Wellesley Collection. 

2. Colonel Graham. By John Bogle (Fl. 1769-1803). Signed and 

dated 1797. 

Formerly in the Wellesley Collection. 

3. Philip and John, elder sons of J. B. Church, M.P. for Wendover. 

By Richard Cosway, R.A. (1742-1821). 
Formerly in the Wellesley Collection. 

4. John Flaxman, R.A. By Ozias Humphr}', R.A. (1742-1810). 

Formerly in the Wellesley Collection. 

5. A Man, name unknown. By John Smart, Junior {ob. 1806). 

Signed and dated. 

Collection of Dr. G. C. Williamson. 

6. The King of Rome as a Child, 1811-1832. By J. B. Isabey 

(1 767-1 855). Signed. 

In the Collection of the Duke of Portland, K.G. 



Other clever painters were Adam Buck, who drew 
many of his best works in exact prolile ; Thomas 
Day ; John Plott, the naturahst, who drew snails and 
shells with such exquisite skill ; John Alefounder, who 
was a constant exhibitor at the Royal Academy in the 
eighteenth century, and many of whose portraits were 
engraved, and who was the son of a gold frame maker ; 
George Chinnery, who went out to the East and painted 
many of his best miniatures in Cochin-China and Macao 
and Siam ; Samuel Collins, a disgraceful man, but a clever 
artist, to whom Ozias Humphry was apprenticed ; Daniel 
Orme, an Irishman, whose works are marvels of elaborate 
stippling ; Paul Jean, the Guernsey painter ; Bowyer, 
whose work somewhat resembles that of Smart ; and 
Barber Beaumont, who was at one time a painter of 
theatrical celebrities, and who did some skilful miniatures. 
All these are men who must be mentioned, but about 
whom further details should be sought in larger books of 

Finally, it may be well just to refer to Louis Vaslet, 
who practised at York in 1770, and at Bath in 1775, 
and who, on several occasions, was painting in Oxford, 
because his principal works were in pastel ; and his 
miniatures betray a curious flocculent, loose technique, 
and a cold colouring that marks out a painter in pastel 
who only very occasionally painted miniatures. 



THE notable man of the concluding period of minia- 
ture art was Andrew Robertson, who forms an 
interesting link between the great men of the 
eighteenth century and the miniature painters who were the 
last of their order, since he came into contact with Cosway, 
Humphry and Shelley, and received commendation 
from all of them. Robertson is also particularly interesting 
from a painter's point of view, because he left behind him 
a quantity of documents concerning his art, and some very 
interesting letters about the painters of the day, all of 
which were published by his daughter, Miss Emily 
Robertson, who only died a short time since, and who 
brought out an interesting — " Life and Letters " of her 

He was a Scotsman, bom at Aberdeen in 1777, and was 
intended at first for the medical profession, but he was 
much interested in art, and when only sixteen determined 
to throw up the idea of medicine and to study landscape 
and sea painting. Even by that time he had produced 
some miniatures, which he used to carry about with him, 
and, presently, making up his mind to submit them to 
Raebum, he knocked at the great painter's door, gave a 
shilling to the servant to allow him to slip into the studio, 
and then, boldly presenting himself before Raebum, 
produced his miniatures, and, to his great joy, received 



high praise for them. He did not, however, succeed at 
first in his profession, and when he went back to Aberdeen 
his principal occupation was that of painting scenery for 
various theatres. His elder brother, Archibald, had, prior 
to this time, migrated to America, and was successful 
there, and he advised Andrew to go up to London and 
study at the Royal Academy. This he did in 180 1, but, 
even by that time, he had been so industrious that he 
himself tells us, he had painted over four hundred miniatures. 
When he came to London, West sat to him for his portrait, 
and many of the other miniature painters of the day gave 
high praise to his productions. 

He adopted quite an unusual method of working in 
water-colour, not wholly satisfactory from the point of 
view of the present day, because his determination was 
to resemble painting in oil, and his technique was so 
puzzling that some of the artists to whom he submitted 
it were by no means sure that the work was not in oil ; 
in fact, he tells us that Ozias Humphry took out a strong 
glass and examined the miniatures, feeling quite certain 
in his own mind that they were not executed in water- 
colour. Robertson's great desire was to produce strong, 
full-coloured portraits, and he used very rich and, at 
times, somewhat hot pigments. His miniatures are 
frequently not oval, but rectangular, and he seems to 
have preferred this shape to the more usual one. He 
was successful and popular, especially as he had struck 
out a new line in his portraits — something that people 
had not seen before. He put a great deal of himself into 
his miniatures — always a satisfactory thing for an artist to 
do, especially in view of the identification of his miniatures 
by those who are to follow him — and Robertson's miniatures 
can, in consequence, be readily picked out by reason of 
their strong and forcible qualities, and the unusual power 
and warmth of their colouring. He was an interesting 
man, ever ready to help his brother artists, and quite 


early in his life he attached himself to the Volunteer 
Movement and to various Musical Societies. 

His two brothers, who also painted miniatures, were 
Archibald and Alexander. Archibald is said to have been 
taught miniature painting by Charles Sherriff, and he 
was also one of West 's pupils, while Alexander studied under 
Shelley. Both of these men went out to America and 
there settled down and died. 

Robertson's principal pupil was Sir William Ross, who 
is generally regarded as the last of the miniature painters, 
as he lived down to i860 — not actually so, because 
there were others who outlived him, but one of the last 
who attained anything like popularity. Some of the 
best of Ross's work is to be seen at Windsor Castle, and 
several of his finest miniatures were in the possession of 
the Baroness Burdett-Coutts. It was in his time that the 
method was introduced, by which a shaving of ivory, 
taken from a tusk, was slowly pressed by hydraulic pressure 
until it became very nearly flat, and by this means Ross 
and Thorbum and Newton, especially the two former, 
were enabled to have very large pieces of ivory, far larger 
than it would at first have been thought possible to have 
obtained. The difficulty, of course, with regard to these 
pressed-out pieces of ivory is that the material is apt to 
make endeavours to return to its original curve, and there 
is, in consequence, grave danger of these large pieces of ivory 
splitting and re-curving. This has happened to almost 
all Ross's largest miniatures ; almost invariably there is 
a split in the thin ivory, and sometimes, unfortunately, 
several of them. 

His work was extremely minute — what artists call 
" tight " — and, unfortunately, the style of costume and 
of coiffure was not in his favour. Fashion was not kind 
to people in the Early Victorian days, and, moreover, 
the desire of the sitter, especially when groups were 
concerned, was in favour of a somewhat stiff formality. 


Ross also was weak in his treatment of atmosphere, and his 
productions are unsatisfactory from that point of view. 
In that Thorbum was far better, but he, again, was 
rather incUned to produce a picture rather than a portrait, 
and to introduce accessories in the form of landscapes in 
the rear, which tended to detract from the dignity of the 
portrait. None of these latter men were helped by the 
costume of their sitter. Thorbum broke away most from 
convention, determining to give to his sitter as simple 
and dignified, almost classical a style of costume, as the 
fashions of the day would permit. His was extremely 
fine work, very highly finished. He was a wonderful 
draughtsman. He also was a Scotsman, bom in Dumfries, 
in 1818, and he shared with Ross the popularity' of the 
day. He was not content with the curved pieces of ivory, 
and desired even larger tablets on which to paint, and, 
therefore, many of his miniatures were composed of two 
and even more pieces of ivor}^ skilfully joined one to the 
other. In this way, he obtained large superficial area, 
and avoided the risk attached to the shavings of ivory 
pressed flat, which were so popular ^^ith Ross. Thorbum 
became an Associate of the Royal Academy, and exhibited, 
year after year, from 1837 down to 1884. He died in the 
following year. 

Others who should be mentioned were Chalon, the Swiss, 
who was a member of the Society of Associated Artists in 
Water-colour, and who exhibited miniatures in 1800 at the 
Royal Academy, and painted a considerable number, 
which were very popular and extremely skilful in execution. 
There should have been a large collection of Chalon 's 
work, the property of the nation, but, unfortunately, 
the arrangements that he proposed to make for bequeathing 
his portraits did not materialise, and when he died, in 
i860, his works were scattered. 

Newton, who was miniature painter to \\'illiam IV. 
and Queen Adelaide, and who became Sir William Newton 


in 1837, and died in 1869, was another favourite miniature 
painter of the day, and he also was successful in joining 
together a number of pieces of ivory, and thus producing 
a large tablet. William Dyce, R.A., who died as late as 
1864, executed a few miniatures, and some charming 
drawings in miniature style. 

Holmes, who painted Lord Byron, and who was a clever 
musician ; Egley, who was responsible for over two 
hundred miniatures, most of which were exhibited at the 
Royal Academy ; and Severn, who is best known for his 
wonderful miniature of Keats, and who died in 1821, 
are others who deserve mention ; but gradually, the 
introduction of photography, and the rapidity with which 
by the new art a portrait could be executed, spoiled the 
profession of the miniature painter, and for some time 
miniature painting practically died out, the artists just 
named having been the latest exponents of the original 

In later years there has been a revival, but modern 
miniatures do not come uithin the scope of this book. 



IT was my good fortune, some years ago, to see the 
commencement of a collection of miniatures, and I 
gathered from the amateur, who was entering with 
some enthusiasm into his pursuit, that he had accepted a 
strange and wholly erroneous idea concerning miniatures 
in enamel. It is possible that he may not stand alone in 
the opinion he had of these interesting portraits, and it may 
be well, therefore, to state wherein he was in error, and to 
give an explanation of the circumstances which attend the 
production of portraits in enamel. He had an impression 
that they were more or less mechanical productions. He 
did not range them as low as, for instance, chromolitho- 
graphs or three-colour blocks, but in some mysterious way 
he had acquired the idea that they could be reproduced in 
any number, that they were not worth collecting, because 
a dozen collectors could probably have exactly the same 
example, and that they did not represent artistic or deter- 
minate effort on the part of one painter, as did the ordinary 
miniatures. The fact that they were executed on metal 
seemed to him, in his ignorance, to imply that they were 
mechanical productions, and their very brilliance of colour 
had led him to think that they were quite modern. He did 
not in the least grasp the fact that a painted enamel 
portrait is just as much a fine piece of artistic effort as is 
an ordinary miniature, painted on ivory, and was amazed 
to understand that the paintei in enamel needs to be, if 



possible, the more dexterous artist of the two, and certainly 
the more courageous : dexterous, because the colours he 
uses very seldom resemble the tints that will hereafter be 
produced on the enamel, and courageous, because the whole 
of his carefully planned and beautifully executed work may 
be ruined by some fault either in the colouring, the plate, 
or the furnace, and may all have to be done over again. 
It was my pleasant task to explain to this particular 
collector how the miniature painter in enamel deals with 
the finely powdered colours he has in use, and using them, 
paints with a brush, upon the surface of the piece of metal, 
or upon some prepared enamel surface, the portrait he 
determines to produce, and how careful he has to be that 
the colours which, upon his brush, may look dull, drab or 
monotonous, should be the right ones which in the finished, 
burned enamel, should yield the blues, reds and yellows 
which he intends. I then had to explain how the enamel 
was carefully deposited in the kiln, how risky was the firing, 
how gradually the vitrification of the different colours took 
place, and how carefully they had to be watched in the 
furnace, and, finally, how often, by some accident, a master- 
piece, the result of infinite labour, care and attention, 
might be transformed into an apparently worthless pro- 
duction. He was glad to learn that enamelled miniature 
portraits were just as interesting to a collector as were 
paintings upon ivory, card, paper or chicken-skin. More- 
over, he learned also that they possessed advantages over 
the ordinary miniature. They could be hung in positions 
in the room which were denied to the ordinary portrait. 
They were practically unaffected by either light or heat, and 
therefore could be exposed to the full sunlight, and the case 
containing them needed neither blind nor shelter. They 
could even be washed, and cleansed in that way from dust 
or dirt, and provided that the enamel was not chipped, 
either by the careless use of a tool in opening the frame, or 
from the result of a fall, the miniature was indestructible. 


and permanent in every way, while finally, in collecting 
miniatures on enamel, he would not find such a strenuous 
opposition on the part of other collectors, as there were 
many persons who did not specially care for enamel por- 
traits, and therefore did not compete in their purchase, 
and at no time had they ever reahsed the high and some- 
what excessive values to which the other portraits had 

In dealing with enamel portraits, we have to start at 
the other end of the story, because the art was not an 
English one at its beginning, and its greatest proficients 
were perhaps the two or three men who were responsible 
for its introduction into England. It was probably com- 
menced by the painters in Limoges, who produced large 
portraits in bright colour on white enamel, and so prepared 
the way for the art to develop, in the seventeenth century, 
into that of producing small portable portraits, such as 
we are more generally inclined to consider as miniatures. 
Taking, no doubt, the original idea from the enamellers 
at Limoges, it was developed by a celebrated goldsmith 
named Jean Toutin, who was also a most wonderful 
designer, and he, with the help of his own son, Henry, and 
of a painter who at first worked in pastels, named Gribelin, 
was the first whom we can definitely claim as a painter 
of small portraits in enamel. There grew up around him 
a school of similar painters, who worked more especially 
in Blois, and in Tours, and a considerable part of their 
labours consisted in enamel painting on the exterior cases 
of the elaborate watches of the period of Louis XIII., 
which were decorated with allegorical and floral designs of 
extreme beauty, and, in some instances, with portraits of 
the patrons for whom these very costly examples of horology 
were prepared. There speedily, however, came to the 
front a Swiss, named Jean Petitot, who was born in Geneva 
in 1607, and was apprenticed in early days to a jeweller, 
named Bordier, who was little older than himself, but was 


so clever in his work that he had attained a considerable 
position in Geneva. These two young men, Petitot and 
Bordier, worked in their native town on enamelhng gold- 
smiths' work, mainly with regard to watchcases, but, not 
satisfied with their progress, they determined to do better. 
They proceeded to enter France, and for a while worked 
with Jean Toutin, learning what he had to teach them, and 
in their turn giving him information. Then they crossed 
to England, provided with letters of introduction to the 
physician to the King, Turquet de Mayerne. This cele- 
brated man, who was an accomplished chemist, made the 
two artists free of his workshop, placed at their disposal 
various discoveries he had made, and assisted them in 
every possible way. So far as can be known, their first 
important work was the preparation of a St. George for 
Charles I., but their aim was to produce fine portraits, 
and this they were speedily successful in accomphshing. 
No more exquisite portraits have ever been painted in 
enamel than those produced by Petitot and his friend, and 
later on, by his son. Their minuteness of execution is 
amazing, and the skill with which the vitrification in the 
kiln was arranged to take place is such as has never been 
equalled. Many of Petitot 's best portraits do not exceed 
the size of a halfpenny, some are far smaller even than that. 
Others, quite a few, are very large, but, in almost every 
case, they are marked by rarely beautiful colouring, by an 
extreme delicacy of technique, and by an extraordinary 
charm which distinguishes them from all other work of the 
period. The largest Petitot probably ever prepared is 
the portrait of the Countess of Southampton, which Walpole 
calls " the most capital enamel in the world." It is now at 
Chatsworth, in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire. 
It is a copy of a portrait by Vandyck, and bears Petitot 's 
signature. Another, almost as large, was at one time in 
the possession of the Crown, and is now one of the chief 
ornaments of the Pierpont Morgan collection. It is a 


signed portrait of the Duchess of Richmond and Lennox, 
dated 1643. Of the little ones, there exist a very large 
number, and they embrace portraits of Charles I. and of 
his Queen, and of almost all the persons of eminence in this 
country who were connected with the Court. After the 
execution of the King, Petitot left for Paris. His friend 
Bordier, however, remained in London, and while there 
Bordier carried out certain important commissions from 
Cromwell and his followers, including, it is believed, the 
portraits of Milton and Cromwell, and perhaps the famous 
Naseby jewel which belongs to Lord Hastings. 

When in Paris, Petitot entered into a combination with 
another Bordier, Jacques by name, and these two became 
the most eminentjpainters in the city, were given apartments 
in the Louvre, employed by Louis XIV., and painted all 
the most eminent personages of that brilliant Court. The 
attachment between the two friends lasted for thirty-five 
years, and was only put an end to by the death of Jacques 
Bordier. There were many unhappy difficulties concerning 
Petitot towards the end of his life. He was resolute in his 
attachment to the Reformed faith, and, when disaster 
overtook the Huguenots of France, he was arrested with his 
niece, and eventually, in the poorest of health and great 
despair, placed his signature to an act of abjuration, and 
was permitted in 1687 to leave Paris, and again to reach 
Geneva. Then there were difficulties with regard to what 
the Consistory of the Reformed Church considered as 
apostasy ; but the pressure of circumstances was taken 
into full account, Petitot was received back into the 
Huguenot communion, and, regaining his customary 
high spirits, set to work at his old profession, acquitting 
himself most brilliantly. He received various commissions 
from John Sobieski, King of Poland, and from notable 
and well-to-do people who lived near to Geneva. His 
means rapidly increased, and he was full of energy when, 
on April 3rd, 1691, in the act of painting on the 


Plate XXIX. 

1. Le Comte de Grignan (1669-17 14). By Jean Louis Petitot 


In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 

2. A Royal Prince, name unknown. By Jean Louis Petitot (1652- 

1730 ?) 
In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 

3. Louis XIV. By Jean Petitot (1607-1691). 

In the Collection of an anonymous collector. 

4. Oliver Cromwell, contemporary English Miniature Artist, 


5. Queen Victoria (1819-1901). By Henry Bone the younger. 

Nos. 4 and 5 are in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. 

6. Charles II. By Prieur, after S. Cooper. Signed and dated 


In the Collection of the King of Denmark. 

F'r.A'lK XXIX 


enamel the portrait of his faithful and devoted wife, he 
was seized with an attack of paralysis, and passed away 
during the succeeding night. He was succeeded in his 
profession by his son, who was almost his equal in skill, and 
there are some wonderful works by the younger Petitot 
in various collections, notably in those of the Countess 
of Dartrey and of Earl Beauchamp, and there are others 
in the Royal Collection, in Paris, in various Rothschild 
collections, in Berlin, Vienna, Dresden and Budapest. 
There are three of the elder Petitot 's drawings in existence, 
all of which are in the Pierpont Morgan collection ; beyond 
these, I know of no work of his, save the enamels, with the 
exception of a wonderful MS. journal which still remains 
in the possession of the Petitot family, and which has in 
it certain drawings made by the artist in Indian ink, and 
two delightful portraits. 

Another painter in enamel who must be mentioned is 
Pierre Prieur, who was connected by family with Petitot, 
having married Marie, the elder daughter of Petitot the 
elder. Prieur was in England in 1669, painting a portrait of 
Charles II., and another of Lady Castlemaine. Previous 
to that time, he appears to have been working for the King 
of Denmark, and in the following year we hear of him in 
Poland, painting a portrait of the King of that country 
which was intended as a present for the Danish monarch. 
In 1671, Prieur was again in Denmark, executing some 
remarkable commissions for portraits of the elder children 
of Frederick III. Then he visited Spain and journeyed 
to Russia, where I found several examples of his work, all 
dated 1676, and finally, he returned to Denmark, and there 
he is believed to have died in 1677. His work in England 
is very rare. There is one example of it at Windsor Castle, 
and there were two in a private collection, but one of them 
has been temporarily lost sight of. The Morgan collection 
contains two fine examples. Prieur's work is particularly 
brilHant, and he had the secret of a remarkable blue, \>hich 



is a feature of his portraits, and does not seem to have been 
known to the other painters in enamel of the day. 

The younger Petitot was said to have studied for a while 
under Samuel Cooper, but there is no evidence for this 
statement, and his miniatures do not give me the impression 
that would lead to its acceptance. It is declared in a work 
dealing with enamel of that particular period, that some- 
times these portraits, exquisitely painted upon a background 
of rough white enamel, laid upon the tiny morsel of gold 
or silver plate, had to be fused seven or eight times, on 
every occasion with the grave risk of complete failure. 
The marvel of their beauty is therefore increased, and their 
value in the eye of an understanding collector cannot 
but be greatly enhanced. 

There were many more enamellers in France, following 
these especial few, and such names as Cheron, Arlaud, 
Masse, Aubert, Liotard, Rouquet and others, are well 

In England, the art commences about the time of Queen 
Anne, and its first important exponents were both foreign- 
ers, Boit and Zincke, Boit having been a Swede, bom in 
Stockholm in 1663, and Zincke, his pupil, a native of 
Dresden, some twenty-one years younger, who came to 
England in 1706. Boit was a man of an adventurous 
character, but procrastinating to the last degree. He 
aimed at producing an enamel which would measure 24 
inches by 18, and represent Queen Anne surrounded 
by her Court. It was intended to commemorate the 
victories of the Duke of Marlborough ; the design for 
it was prepared, Boit had a considerable advance from 
the Cro^^^l, and erected a special furnace, with adjacent 
workshops. His principal difficulty was m obtaining a 
preparatory ground of white enamel suitable for his purpose, 
and this he never seems to have succeeded in doing. He 
did, however, commence to paint the enamel, and pro- 
duced a considerable part of it, but Queen Anne's husband. 


who was probably responsible for the idea, died, Prince 
Eugene, whose portrait was to come into the enamel, 
refused to sit, and other troubles ensued. Then Queen 
Anne died, Boit got into difficulties, and left England for 
France, where he passed the remaining years of his life, 
and carried out some interesting and important portraits. 

Zincke, who was his pupil, was responsible for a very 
large number of small paintings in enamel. He was cer- 
tainly the first worker in England to produce fine portraits 
in this fascinating manner. His peculiar blue, and an 
almost equally striking pink, are characteristic of his work, 
and enable one to identify it almost in a moment. He 
must have been a prolific worker, as there are examples 
of his productions in almost every notable collection. 
Walpole tells us that he increased his prices over and over 
again, but everybody desired to sit to Zincke, and it was of 
very little use increasing his fees, because he appears to 
have had just as much work as ever.^ One of his pupils 
was a man named Prewitt, who executed some excellent 
portraits, and was, if anything, a better draughtsman than 
his master, and possessed of a somewhat less ostentatious 
scheme of colouring. 

Two other foreign painters who worked in England were 
J. H. Hurter and his younger brother, J. F. C. Hurter. 
Both these men were constantly employed by the then Earl 
of Dartrey, and in the possession of the present Countess of 
Dartrey there are more examples of their work than are 
to be found in any other portrait collection. The younger 
Hurter left England for Russia in 1785, and is said to have 
died in that country. 

The first miniature painter who exhibited at the Royal 

1 The Will of Sir John Bosworth, of Epsom, Co. Surrey, dated 
22 February, 1752, proved 12 August, 1752, by his sons, the Rev. 
John Bosworth and Samuel Bosworth, mentions a bequest to the 
testator's son John of the snufT-box with his mother's picture 
enamelled by Zincke set in the lid. 


Academy was Gervase Spencer, who is stated to have been 
originally a valet, or footman, but whose skill in portrait 
painting attracted the attention of his master, who gave 
him the necessary education, and he speedily became an 
exhibitor at the newly founded Academy, and a very 
popular worker, both in enamel and as an ordinary minia- 
ture painter. The duller shades of green particularly 
appealed to Spencer, and his colouring is always of a quiet 
and refined type. His portraits are usually signed by tiny 
square initials. He died in 1763. 

One of his successors was Henry Spicer, a Norfolk man, 
who carried on the work of the enameller down to the time 
of his death in 1804. He was a painter in enamel to the 
Prince of Wales, was a resident in Dublin for some few 
years, and a successful and remarkable miniature painter. 
He does not appear to have produced many portraits. 
He is said to have been very slow in his accomplishment. 
As a rule, his miniatures are signed on the back, and in 
this branch of miniature collecting the collector has one 
special advantage in the fact that, as a rule, an enamel 
painter gave his signature, and also frequently the date 
and his own address, burnt in in black on the bluish green 
back of the portrait. It is not difficult, therefore, as a 
inile, to identify a portrait in enamel. 

Others who should be mentioned are Samuel Cotes ; 
Jeremiah Meyer, who was another of Zincke's pupils, and 
enameller to George III., who produced excellent work of 
a very fine character ; Nathaniel Hone, and his nephew, 
Horace Hone, who died in 1825 ; Michael Moser, who was a 
jeweller and medallist, and responsible for one of the great 
seals of England, and Samuel Finney, who in 1765 was 
appointed enamel painter to Queen Charlotte, and who 
was an exceedingly successful man, acquiring a consider- 
able fortune, and eventually able to redeem some family 
estates in Cheshire, where he settled down to the quiet 
life of a country magistrate. Others were John Howes, 


W. Bate, Birch, who produced a fine portrait dated 1793 
Hatfield, one of whose best works is dated 1780, and Thomas' 
and William Craft, who worked on rather a larger scale 
than other painters of the day, and some of whose portraits 
measure as much as seven inches by five. 

We then come to one of the latest, and in some respects 
one of the greatest enamel painters in England, Henry 
Bone, a Comishman, born at Truro in 1755, and who was 
for a while a decorator of fine china, working at Plymouth, 
and eventually in Bristol, painting landscapes and flowers 
on porcelain. In 1780, he came up to London, and there 
decorated watch cases, buttons and brooches, but speedily 
found that his metier was with regard to portraits, and he 
gathered about him an important clientele, and was for a 
long time the most popular enamel painter of the day. 
George III. made him his enamel painter, and he then set 
himself, not only to produce portraits, but to copy the 
works of the older masters in enamel, and was extra- 
ordinarily successful. He was gifted with a magnificent 
sense of colour, and he painted a long series of reproductions 
of other works, many of which can be still seen at Kingston 
Lacy near Wimbome, and at Wo bum Abbey, Windsor 
Castle and in the Oxford University Galleries. His paint- 
ings are exceedingly brilliant, and the great series of some 
eighty-five portraits, copies of the famous people at the 
Court of Elizabeth, had never been equalled, and can 
surely never be surpassed. The greater part of the collec- 
tion at Kingston Lacy consists of this series, which was 
purchased in 1856, long after the death of Bone. Heniy 
Bone was an Associate of the Academy in 1801, a Royal 
Academician in 1811, and painter in enamel to George III., 
George IV. and William IV. He was succeeded by his two 
sons, H. P. Bone and R. T. Bone, who continued in their 
father's profession, bringing the art of the enamel painter 
almost down to modem times. Two other enamel painters 
who should have been mentioned were Richard Collins, 


who was a pupil of Jeremiah Meyer, and John Plott, who 
was a pupil of Nathaniel Hone. These lived well into the 
nineteenth century, Plott dying in the early part of it, and 
Collins surviving to 1831. 

The last important Englishman to work in enamel was 
William Essex, who first exhibited at the Royal Academy 
in 18 18, and was appointed miniature painter and enamel 
painter both to Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort, 
and who exhibited steadily at the Academy away down to 
1862. He was an expert enameller, an accomphshed 
chemist, and a very clever artist. His pictures were not 
merely portraits of the notable people of the day, but they 
also included landscapes and classical subjects. The last 
few years of his life were passed at Brighton, where he died 
in 1869, at the age of eighty-five, leaving behind him a 
notable treatise on enamel painting, which is of considerable 
importance and is frequently used at the present day. 

The student of portraits in enamel will do well to give 
particular attention to the collection at the Ashmolean 
Museum, Oxford, the main portion of which came by 
bequest to the Gallery in 1897 from the Rev. W. Bentinck L. 
Hawkins ; it has been skilfully arranged and ably catalogued, 
and, as it includes examples of all the notable English 
enamels from the time of Oliver Cromwell down to those 
of H. P. Bone and Essex, it is worthy of the closest atten- 
tion. It embraces examples of several important foreign 
painters in enamel, notably of a Milanese artist, who lived 
and worked in London in the latter part of the eighteenth 
century, one Gaetano Manini; and perhaps Zincke's finest 
work finds a place in its cases, a portrait of Catherine 
Shorter, the first wife of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of 
Orford, and mother of Horace Walpole, from whose collec- 
tion at Strawberry Hill the portrait came. It is set in a 
wonderful gold frame with enamelled flowers, and the 
companion portrait, which represents Sir Robert Walpole, 
is in the collection at Knowsley, belonging to Lord Derby. 


Several of the portraits represent important historic per- 
sonages, such as the Earl of Mansfield, Dr. Johnson, Inigo 
Jones, Alexander Pope, Sir William Hamilton, Sir Joshua 
Reynolds, and the Duke of Wellington, and the collection is 
brought down to the most recent period by important 
examples representing the Prince Consort and Queen 
Victoria, the latter being a notable picture by Essex, 



IT is probable that the collector for whom this book is 
intended will devote his chief attention to the works 
of English artists, and will not be specially interested 
in those who were not connected with this country', but as 
his collection increases, he will be sure to endeavour to 
purchase some of the best French miniatures, and there are 
opportunities occasionally for acquiring good examples of 
foreign art, at comparatively small prices, well worthy of 
being added to a carefully selected collection. 

The finest French miniatures are eagerly desired by the 
chief collectors in Paris, and therefore, as a rule, fetch 
high prices. Of some artists, it may be said that hardly 
any of their best portraits exist outside a particular region 
with which they were connected ; for example, of the work 
of Sergent I only know of one miniature which is not in 
France, and that is a well-known portrait of Marie Antoin- 
ette, which adorns the Pierpont Morgan collection. Of the 
work of Fiiger, the great Viennese painter, all the best 
examples are still to be found in Vienna, either in the 
Academy, or in the great collection which Dr. Figdor was 
able to bring together. 

Of the Swedish painter Hall, his very best works are still 
in Sweden, although as he settled in France in 1766, and 
spent man}' years there, there are many of his notable 
works in Paris. One beautiful example can be seen in the 
Wallace Gallery. There are several in the Pierpont 
Morgan collection, and a few in other collections in England. 



Other Swedish artists, such as Sparrgren and Gillberg, are 
known almost exclusively in Sweden. It is the rarest 
possible thing to see anything by them, or by Brenner or 
Signac, outside Sweden. The best work of Guerin, Fra- 
gonard, Drouet, Dumont and Augustin, still remains in 
France, and is in the highest possible repute in that countr\'. 

Isabey's work has always been popular in England, and 
there are some good examples of his miniatures to be found 
here. He was a particularly interesting portrait painter 
because, attached for some time to the Court of Marie 
Antoinette, he yet lived long enough to paint portraits of 
Napoleon I., to have the Empress Josephine and the 
Empress Marie Louise both to sit to him, to see Louis 
Philippe, and to paint portraits of Louis XVIII. and Charles 
X., so that his experience ranges over a long and eventful 
period of French history. His miniatures are very easy 
to recognise, because the soft gauzy white drapery that 
veils so many of his portraits is very characteristic. 
Moreover, he was partial to a peculiar shape, using very 
long ovals of ivory, practically elUptic, and measuring 
about 5 in. by 3^ as a rule. He also produced some 
exceedingly clever sketches for portraits, on pieces of 
paper of similar shape, and even on ivor\'. His signature 
is constantly forged ; some of his work is not difficult to 
copy, although hardly anyone but himself could produce 
the exquisite film-like quality of his draperies. The 
miniatures that are signed " Isabey " alone, without the 
initial, and where the lines have the same thickness all 
along, and the thicker or thinner up and down strokes 
are not clearly visible, may be viewed with some suspicion, 
because Isabey's own actual signature, although he adopted 
three methods of signing it ; has distinct up and down 
strokes in the writing, a very easy flow to the tail of the 
" y," small square-headed capitals, and a certain freedom 
which is wholly different from the forged signatures. 

The miniatures of Fragonard are very interesting, and 


Plate XXX. 

The Countess Sophie Poto9ki (i 765-1 822). By P. A. Hall 


In the Collection of Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 

A Boy, name unknown. By Dumont (1751-1831). 
In the Wallace Collection. 



differ entirely from those of any other artist of the day. 
They are painted with a very full brush in bold, light, 
sketchy manner, the tints so daintily placed upon the 
ivory as to give the effect of having been blown upon the 
material, and resting there with a featherlike lightness. 
He used a great deal of yellow in many of his miniatures. 
It is fine, sketchy work, and of great beauty. Some of his 
portraits are said to have been the work of his wife, Marie 
Anne Gerard, who was also a professional miniaturist. 
Sometimes it is not easy to determine whether husband or 
wife was responsible for the portrait in question, but there 
was an exhibition of his works in 1907 in which some of 
Madame Fragonard's miniatures were exhibited in the same 
room, and a certain consensus of opinion was obtained, by 
which the two groups were differentiated the one from the 

There is a well-known portrait by Fragonard in the 
Wallace Gallery called "The Child with the Fair Hair." 
The original sketch for that forms a large miniature in the 
Pierpont Morgan collection, and, in that miniature, Fra- 
gonard shows another curious characteristic. He had a 
habit of sketching out the portrait, and then finding that 
the piece of ivory did not allow sufficient space for a 
suitable background ; in this particular case, and in others, 
he pieced on similar pieces of ivory, so as to enlarge the 
space behind the head of the sitter. This characteristic is 
a notable one, and has sometimes been the means of 
identifying his portraits. 

Hall, the Swede, who did his best work in Paris, painted 
in a rich, loose fashion, and was fond of landscape back- 
grounds, or the representation of a garden and some trees. 
His colour scheme was extraordinarily fine, and hardly any 
miniatures painted in France are of greater artistic merit 
than those for which he was responsible. 

Augustin, who was bom in 1759, was one of the greatest 
of the French miniature painters. He began producing 


miniatures when quite a boy, and was in steady practice 
down to the time of his death in 1832. The greatest 
collection of his miniatures in existence is that which Mr. 
Picrpont Morgan acquired from his heirs and it includes a 
wonderful series of sketches and unfinished miniatures, 
as well as many portraits of himself and completed minia- 
tures of persons of high importance at that time in Paris. 
A full account of this artist, with illustrations of his work 
and details concerning his career, can be found in the 
fourth volume of the Pierpont Morgan Catalogue. 

Two of his pupils were Laurent and Pinchon, both 
notable men. 

Another great French miniature painter was Dumont, or 
rather one ought to say that there were two Dumonts, 
Frangois and Tony, both clever painters, and it is not easy 
to distinguish between the works of the two. Yet another 
was Vestier, whose daughter Fran(;ois Dumont married, 
and who was responsible for some extremely fine minia- 

Pierre Prud'hon (1758-1823) and his great friend Con- 
stance Me3'er, were also responsible for some notable 
miniatures, and other French artists who ought to be 
named were Rouvier, VilUers, Hoin, Perrin and Jacques, 
but about all these portrait painters it is well to refer the 
collector to the works mentioned in the bibUography, 
especially to the important book on French miniature 
painters by Henri Bouchot, which can be obtained in two 
editions, either with or without illustrations. 

The chief Spanish painter to be mentioned is Ferdinand 
Ouaglia, who was the Empress Josephine's favourite 
miniature painter, and was especially successful in painting 
velvet and fur ; while, among German artists, Chodowiecki 
must not be forgotten (1726-180 1) and, in enamels, Ding- 
linger and Thienpondt. Amongst native Dutch miniature 
painters the chief, perhaps, is the seventeenth-century 
artist named Lundens. 



A MINIATURE need not, necessarily, have colour. 
There is one group of miniatures, to be considered 
in this chapter, which are entirely lacking in 
colour, and are monotone in hue, either the delicate black 
of graphite or pencil, the bro^vnish tint of Indian ink or 
sepia, or the gleaming grey tone of silver point. 

To these might be added certain others drawn in pencil 
and crayon, in which perchance two, or three at the most, 
faint colours are introduced either by craj'on or wash. 

It was at one time suggested that the dra\\ings included 
in this group were not portrait miniatures strictly speaking, 
but were prepared either as studies for miniatures in 
colour or larger portraits, or else as the preparatory^ studies 
for the use of engravers, but these theories have been 
generally laid aside. 

It may, moreover, be assumed that man}' of the pencil 
portraits usually termed Plumbago Drawings, carried out 
on paper or vellum and drawn with a fmely pointed piece 
of graphite, by such artists as Loggan, White, and Forster, 
were actual ad vivum portrait miniatures complete in 
themselves, not studies for any other works, and as truly 
deserving of consideration in a book on miniatures as are 
the portraits in water-colour more usually accepted under 
that name. 

It is, of course, difficult to know where to draw a line 
for the collector, and impossible to determine amongst 



these drawings which should be considered as a miniature 
and which should be discarded. 

Each collector must please himself. One may include 
all portraits drawn in pencil, crayon, Indian ink, silver 
print or wash, provided they are small, and of handy 
.proportions. Another may confine his attention to the 
drawings made in graphite, and reject the rest. The latter 
may perhaps be technically the more correct, but the 
former will possess the more interesting and instructive 

In England there has been a regular school of artists 
who worked in plumbago ; Loggan, Forster and White 
being perhaps the most notable amongst them. In other 
countries, notably in Holland, there have been many 
artists proficient in this art ; but the difference is, that while 
we know of no miniatures in colour by the three men just 
named we find that most of the Dutch and French plumba- 
goists worked also in colour, only occasionally confining 
their attention to the production of pencil or plumbago 
portraits. I must not imply in this statement, however, 
that the artists just named who worked — so far as w^e know 
— exclusively in plumbago were the only English artists 
who adopted this form of drawing. Such was not the case. 
Those who painted in colour also executed at times, fine 
pencil portrait drawings which may well be termed minia- 
tures. We know, for example, of one fine pencil drawing 
by Samuel Cooper, and there are several in existence bj' Fai- 
thorne, by Richardson, by Lely, and by George Vertue, 
all of whom are known to draw in colour, while amongst 
engravers who executed such portraits we may mention 
Abraham Blootelling, George White, Greenhill and others. 

Let me now treat in some detail of those artists who may 
be claimed with some definite assurance as miniaturists in 

Of these probably Da\'id Loggan is the chief. He was a 
native of Danzig, bom in 1635, and he came to England 


some time before 1653 and was naturalised in this country. 
His chief talent lay in engraving, and he was appointed 
Engraver to the University of Oxford in 1669 and to that 
of Cambridge in i6go. His fame rests upon his two 
splendid series of engraved views of the Colleges knoAvn as 
Oxonia lUustrata, 1675, and Cambrigia lUustrata, 1676- 
1690. He was, however, a very skilful artist in preparing 
ad vivum portraits, which he executed as a rule on vellum 
and generally signed and dated. They are dehcate, dainty 
works, exquisite in detail and remarkable, amongst other 
qualities, for the manner in which the lace on the cravats 
is dehneated. So perfectly is this rendered that a skilful 
lace worker could work on a pillow from it and produce a 
fabric exactly resembling that represented in the portrait. 

It is clear that some at least of Loggan's portraits were 
carried out vAih a view to engraving, one of the four 
belonging to the University of Oxford " being apparently 
the original of an engraving of great iconographical inter- 
est." Another in my omu collection, which was as recently 
as 1848 in the collection at Windsor Castle, is clearly the 
original for the portrait of Charles II. which was engraved 
for the patents and charters of the day, but, on the other 
hand, many of Loggan's fine drawings were not so intended, 
and were just fine portrait miniatures, executed in plum- 
bago. In the Wellesley collection there were portraits of 
Cardinal Mazarin (signed and dated 1659), Mrs. Per^vick 
(signed and dated 1655), Ralph Bathurst (signed and dated 
1681), and a portrait of Charles II., while in my own collec- 
tion, besides the portrait of Charles II. already mentioned, 
and another of the same monarch sketchily drawn, 
there are similar ones of Sir Bibye Lake (signed and dated 
1678), Charles, sixth Duke of Somerset (signed and dated 
1682), Henry, Lord Grey de Ruthyn (signed and dated 
1683) and James, Marquis of Douglas. 

The drawing of Cardinal Mazarin was discovered in an 
old house at Chelsea close to where the Duchesse de Mazarin 


Plate XXXI. 

Plumbago Drawing of Charles, Sixth Duke of Somerset (1662- 
1748), commonly called the proud Duke. By David Loggan 
(1635-1700 ?). Signed and dated 1682. 

Plumbago Drawing of " Elizabeth Keyt, ist wife of Thomas 
Charles, 5th Viscount Tracy, and Mother of the Honble. Jane, 
wife of Cecil Hanbury, Esq." By Thomas Forster (Fl. 1695- 
1712). Signed and dated 1703. " Framed by Orme, Feb. 
7th, 1704." 

Both in the Collection of Dr. G. C. Williamson. 



lived. The one of Mrs. Per\\ick contained some of Loggan 's 
most marvellous drawing of lace ; the bodice in the portrait 
is exquisite in its delicacy and charm. 

Robert White was Loggan 's pupil and adopted his 
master's manner of drawing, excelling him perhaps in the 
deUneation of hair. His portraits are stronger and more 
forcible than those of Loggan, not so dainty nor so refined, 
but magnificent in their virility. 

There are twelve of his works in the Print Room at the 
British Museum, the most notable being the well-known ' 
portrait of John Banyan. In the Duke of Portland's 
collection there are three signed portraits, Charles II. 
(1684), the Duke of Monmouth, and Robert Wliite himself 
(1679). Mr. Wellesley also had a superb Charles II. (1702), 
and portraits of James II., \Mlliam Dobson the painter, 
and of a Judge and a Bishop, as well as two other 
signed portraits of men whose names are unknown. 
The examples of WTiite's work in my own collection are 
a portrait of Joseph Addison (1672-1719) the original 
from which the well-known engraving was made, and 
portraits of Queen Catherine of Braganza, Henrietta 
Anne, daughter of Charles I., and Thomas Thynnc. 

Of the third great draughtsman in plumbago, Thomas 
Forster, we know very little indeed. He was rather later 
in date than the other two, and appears to have flourished 
between 1695 and 17 12, but who he was and what was his 
history and who were his masters, we do not know. His 
work is amazing and wonderful. He used very hard 
graphite, pointed to an almost microscopic sharp- 
ness, and, working as he did mainly on vellum, it 
must have been almost impossible to erase a mark or a 
line. Occasionally his portraits are touched with a little 
grey wash, especially about the draperies, but all the 
rest is in fine and exquisite line. I believe that my 
own portrait of Viscountess Tracy (signed and dated 
1703) is as fine an example of his work as any 



known, and besides that I have three other works ; 
but Mr. Wellcsley possessed a wonderful series of his 
portraits representing members of the Bultcel family, and, 
in addition to these, he had ten others, including portraits 
of Dr. and Mrs. Hay, the Duke of Gloucester, Queen Anne's 
son ; Lord Halifax, General Crofts, the son of the Duke of 
Monmouth ; James Drake the writer (a superb portrait), 
Lord Henry Scott and others. Most of these were signed and 
dated works. The one of Lord Henry Scott was minute, only 
measuring i^ in. by i^- in. ; the others his more usual 
size, about 3| in. by 4:^ in. There are two belonging to the 
University of Oxford, one fine one of William III. at Wel- 
beck Abbey, and several in the Holburne Museum in Bath. 

These three great names do not, how'ever, exhaust the 
list of the English exponents of this exquisite art, but 
before I pass to the lesser men, some attention must be 
given to John Faber and his son, of the same name. 

The Fabers were mezzotint engravers, and, like Loggan, 
the elder Faber, who came from The Hague, worked in 
Oxford and Cambridge, producing in each place an 
important series of portraits of founders. Both drew 
portraits that are almost miraculous in detail and finish, 
but they are not in plumbago but in Indian ink, and are 
as a rule adorned with elaborate explanatory' legends, 
signatures and dates. 

In the possession of works of Faber, Mr. Wellesley's 
collection stood supreme. His portrait of Mary II . 
was extremely fine, and those of the five Dutch 
Admirals, drawn separately, and his portraits of Sir 
George Rooke, Sir James Wishart, Lord Athlone and 
General Hill left little to be desired. The Rijks Museum 
in Amsterdam owns three of Faber's drawings, the 
British IMuseum also has three. I have one, a 
portrait (5^X4^) of Charles I., "Done from ye 
Original Painting in the Possession of ye Honble. George 
Clarke in -Oxford," which is as fine an example of 


Faber's skill as any collector could desire to possess. 
I also possess two portraits of William III., and two 
by the younger Faber of George I. and George II., 
but Mr. W^ellesley had twenty by the father and five 
more by the son, including the earliest dated one that 
is known, that of a portrait of the King of Saxony, 
dated 1688. 

Some of them were executed in Holland, as five testify to 
their execution at The Hague in 1692, and two at Amster- 
dam in 1693 and 1696, but others were drawn in London 
or at Chatham, as the legends upon them set forth. Those 
of the younger Faber were probably all completed in 
London, and included portraits of George I., George 
II., and Joseph Addison, one of them being partly in 
Indian ink and partly in plumbago. 

It is hardly doing justice to William Faithorne, the 
famous engraver, to place him amongst the lesser men, 
more especially as the plumbago drawing in the Wellesley 
collection which he drew of Sir John Reresby was one of the 
finest examples of this art that I have ever seen, but the 
grouping is rather a matter of necessity. In the first 
group were those whose portraits are exclusively in plum- 
bago or in a kindred material, in the later group those 
whose portraits in plumbago were only a part of their art, 
or those artists who specially drew for engraving afterwards 
and not so much for the purpose of making an ad vivum 
portrait for its own sake. Whether Faithorne 's portrait 
of Reresby, a wonderful production, was intended to form 
the basis for a print one can hardly say, but another splendid 
example of his work in pencil, a portrait of Charles II., 
that was in the same collection, was almost certainly a 
finished study for an engraved work. 

Forster had a relation named Charles Forster, who drew 
in 1711, but whether son or brother to the greater man no 
one can tell; and Wliite had a son — George WTiite (1684- 
1732). I have portraits by each of them, a notable one 


Plate XXXII. 


Drawing in Indian Ink by John Faber the elder (1650-1721) of 
Charles I. Inscribed : 

" CarolusI Mag: Brit: Fr: and Hib: Rex. Done from ye Original 
Painting in the Possession of ye Honble. George Clarke in Oxford by 
J . Faber ' ' ; 

and also described on the reverse as depicting the King " as he sat 
his trial in Westminster Hall, January 23, 1648. A Drawing with 
the Pen by J. Faber." 

Collection of Dr. G. C. WilUamson. 



by George White representing Queen Anne. Then there 
is the Scottish draughtsman, David Paton (fl. 1650- 
1700), whose finest productions belong to the Earl of 
Dysart and Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, but by 
whom I have a portrait of Mary, Marchioness of 
Douglas, and Mr. Wellesley had two of the Earl 
of Dalkeith and Sir John Dalrymple ; and there were 
several painters in colour who were responsible occasionally 
for portraits in pencil, plumbago or crayon that may be 
termed miniatures. Of these Mary Beale (1632-1697), 
Jonathan Richardson (1665-1745), Balthaser Denner 
(1685-1749), William Pether the mezzotinter {1738 ?-i82i), 
J. Verbruggen (fl. 1737), George Vertue (1684-1756), 
Thomas Worlidge the engraver (1700-1766), and George 
Glover, another engraver (fl. 1625-1658), may be men- 

It will have been noticed, however, that Loggan and 
Faber both came from the Continent to England, and the 
former sojourned a while in Holland, while the latter 
claimed it as his birthplace. Furthermore, Simon de 
Pass (1595 ?-i647), another plumbagoist of repute, and his 
brother William both came from Holland, and it is easy 
to understand that in the Netherlands the art was more 
constantly practised than in England, and that some of the 
finest pencil miniatures in existence were therefore produced 
by Dutch artists. They were not, strictly speaking, 
plumbagoists, for the use of the hard graphite as Loggan, 
White and Forster used it, is very much an English art ; 
but we shall notice that a large number of Dutch artists 
were proficient in producing portraits in pencil that can 
be considered as miniatures. 

Abraham de Blois drew Nell Gwynne ; William Jacobs- 
zoon Delff, Maria Strich, the teacher of Calligraphy ; Gerard 
Dou the portrait of Anne Spiering, daughter of his patron 
the Swedish Minister at The Hague ; Hendrick Goltzius 
that of Robert Earl of Leicester ; Jan Liebens that of the 


Earl of Essex ; Crispin de Pass of Hendrick Goltzius ; 
Gesina Ter-Borch of Moses Ter-Borch, and Johannes 
Thopas, Pieter Van der Bauch, Jan Van de Velde, Jan 
Wandelaar and Jan Wienix may all be mentioned, and 
these by no means complete the list as examples of Dutch 
artists who practised this special art. 

A place must certainly be found for the eminent engraver, 
Abraham Blootelling, by whom a signed portrait, certainly 
a miniature, is in my own collection ; and there are many 
other Dutchmen who might also be mentioned. Sweden 
produced one man of high eminence in Charles Bancks, who 
drew portraits in Indian ink. I have a signed work by 
him depicting Oliver Cromwell, which, however, although a 
fine portrait, is not an ad vivum one; but France, in the 
person of Robert Nanteuil (1623-1678) came very close to 
exceeding all others in skill, and his portrait of Charles 
L'Abbede Monveron, from the Wellesley collection, was one 
of the finest pencil portraits that could ever ha\'e been 

This branch of the art can also boast of several anony- 
mous proficients, whom it would be very interesting to 

There is a wonderful study, at Oxford, of Archbishop 
Plunket, "made on the eve of his execution," which has 
been given to Edward Lutterell, and a portrait of a man 
which, it is believed, was drawn by Loggan, while an un- 
finished head of Charles II. has been given to Faithome ; 
but besides these there are several plumbago, pencil or 
crayon or Indian ink miniatures bearing no signature, and 
which therefore cannot be attributed to any of the known 
artists, although it is quite possible that some one of 
them may have been responsible for the works in question. 

Fortunately for the collector it is difficult if not impos- 
sible to forge these plumbago or pencil portraits. The 
labour and skill involved is too great for it to be worth 
while, and all that the collector has to guard against is 


the possibility of copying by photography, when the 
presence of a thick curved glass of very inadequate clearness 
may increase the difficulty of the problem. As a rule, 
however, these drawings are not forgeries, and in case of 
any doubt a careful investigation of the supposed drawing, 
out oj Us jrame, with the aid of a magnifying glass, should 
soon reveal its authenticity or the reverse. 

There must be many pencil portraits still remaining 
hidden in old scrapbooks, as a while they were wholly 
disregarded. They can be found in their black wooden 
frames in many an old house, but still oftener, unframed, 
in portfolios or scrapbooks, and in such places they must 
be sought for. 

They are of peculiar beauty and charm, and the collector 
will readily fall a victim to their fascination. The difficulty 
is, as already stated, what to reject, as almost all portrait 
drawings are beautiful. Some, of course, are quite large ; 
too large perhaps for the collector's cabinet, but even in 
such case they can adorn his wall. The great treasures 
are, however, the drawings in plumbago or Indian ink by 
Loggan, White, Forster, Faber, De Pass, Paton and 
Faithorne, and these need an assiduous searcher, but the 
joy of obtaining an example is very great, and its possession 
a never-ending satisfaction to the collector. 



ADVICE to the collector of miniatures falls natur- 
ally under three heads : how to obtain the 
miniatures, how to preserve and care for them, 
and how to understand them, and it may be well to give 
some detailed information on all of these three points. 

First of all, then, as to collecting. There are two methods 
by which this may be accomplished. The collector may 
either buy here and there, wherever he may be, such minia- 
tures as may take his fanc}', purchasing them in the small 
curiosity shops of the town, or at the pawnbrokers, or 
buying them at auction sales, and may gather in quite a 
considerable number of miniatures, good, bad and in- 
different, by such a method of procedure. He may start 
with a natural eye for what is delightful, what the French 
so cleverly call flair, picking out that which pleases 
him or appeals for one cause or another, or he may simply 
buy under such circumstances freely, without any special 
selection or idea of beauty, but simpl}' because the things 
are miniatures, or are called miniatures, and their posses- 
sion will increase his collection and give him a considerable 
number of pretty things with which to adorn his rooms. 
An alternative to this method is to buy under the advice 
of an expert, or a first-rate dealer, and to buy selected tine 
things that are recommended to him. \Miich procedure 
the collector adopts must, to a certain extent, depend 
upon the size of his purse. If he has ample means, and is 
able to indulge in his hobby to his heart's content, he will 



probably without any hesitation, especially if he be wise, 
select the second method, but the ordinary collector will 
probably be forced by circumstances to select the first 
plan. He will have a certain amount of funds at his dis- 
posal, which he will not mind expending upon a collection, 
treating it as a hobby upon which he is able to spend no 
more than a fixed proportion of his means, and he will natu- 
rally desire to obtain for this expenditure either as large 
a collection as possible, or as choice a selection as he can . 
If he does happen to be gifted with flair, he will probably 
succeed in purchasing some quite interesting and probably- 
important portraits, and on the whole this system of general 
collecting is the one which I am inclined to recommend 
to the ordinary collector, especially at first. It is by far 
the better method for acquiring information and know- 
ledge of the subject, and such knowledge will be a source 
of pleasure to the collector as the years go on. Moreover, 
by such a method, the collector will train his own judg- 
ment and will gradually pile up a mass of experience,, 
which will become increasingly useful to him. I do not 
quite say all should be fish that comes to his net. The 
indiscriminate purchase of everything that is called a 
miniature is by no means to be commended. It is, more- 
over, a somewhat costly plan, because, if the collector 
starts with the idea that he is going to buy everything 
that is offered to him in these smaller shops, and thus to- 
have a very large collection, in the hope of securing one or 
two fine things amongst the lot, he will have to expend 
a very considerable sum of money. 

Hence one has to advise a course rather between the two 
extremes ; general collecting, but at the same time uith 
discretion. It may be taken for granted that no one will 
begin to collect miniatures in a serious fashion without 
some sort of knowledge of his subject, which, however 
negligible, will yet surely enable him to reject Baxter 
prints, coloured photographs, eighteenth-century coloured 


stipple prints, modem chromo-lithographs, illustrations 
cut out from the colour plates of books on miniatures, 
and other similar deceptions, all of which are at the present 
day framed up in miniature frames, and sold as miniatures. 
I can hardly conceive of a collector who starts seriously 
\vithout sufficient knowledge to refrain from such things, 
and he will then devote his attention to portraits which 
are strictly speaking miniatures, instead of to these, which 
by no stretch of imagination can be included under this 
description. Granted, then, that he has sufficient judgment 
to make the necessary rejections, I advise a general collec- 
tion. It will be well to scrutinise, rather carefully, what 
he purchases, even under these circumstances, because I 
must warn him that there are many coloured illustrations 
of miniatures, framed in miniature frames, under rather 
thick glass, which are palmed off as actual miniatures, 
and which do require a certain amount of care, or the 
collector may easily be beguiled. I speak with a certain 
bitterness of these forgeries, for they are nothing less, 
because in many instances they are actually illustrations 
from my own books and from those of other writers, and 
I have had them offered to me, over and over again, by 
dealers who w'ere ignorant of my identity, and who strongly 
recommended these coloured illustrations, in some instances 
hand-coloured on vellum, taken from costly books, as 
original productions of the art of the miniaturist. 

Putting aside these, however, because very early the 
collector should learn to identify them, he has a wide field 
for collecting, and in it he may frequently be successful. 
He will purchase, wherever he may happen to be, the 
miniatures which take his fanc^^ and which he thinks are 
delightful, and worthy of a place in his collection, and then, 
as his knowledge increases, he will sift the collection, 
gradually getting rid of the inferior things, and purchasing 
better in their stead. In some cases he may, by this 
process, obtain quite important miniatures, or damaged 


miniatures by important artists, and these latter will be of 
considerable service in forming his judgment, and helping 
him to acquire even finer things. At the outset, he must 
not imagine that the days for obtaining bargains have yet 
wholly passed. It is not so ; every collector has, in his 
experience, purchased bargains occasionally. The chances 
do not occur very often ; those who sell the miniatures are 
often better qualified, or at least as well qualified, as the 
purchaser, to judge of the value of the particular portrait 
in question, but the reverse is sometimes the case, and 
there have been miniatures discovered in pawnbrokers' 
shops or in small country auctions, and obtained for a few 
shillings, which were worth as many pounds ; while as 
long as collecting goes on, these chances are pretty sure to 
occur, even though admittedly less frequently than they 
used to happen. The collector should make up his mind 
that in any fresh town he visits, if he has the opportunity, 
he will rummage amongst the old curiosity shops and 
pawnbrokers, and see what spoil he can obtain. He must 
start with the information that many of those who keep 
these shops are prepared for him already, and that they 
possess clever copies of miniatures, all nicely framed and 
mounted in the old fashion, with which to beguile him. 
Let him remember that there is a steady and increasing 
market for old frames, that these generally fetch their full 
value, and the explanation of this is that there are indigent 
artists who are ready to make copies more or less skilful, 
of old miniatures, and that there are unscrupulous dealers 
who are ready to put these copies into old frames, with 
dusty, grubby glass over them, in the hope of inducing 
the ignorant collector to pay high prices for their wares. 

In no other way than by slow and painfully acquiring 
experience, can the small general collector learn how to 
reject these copies in forming his collection. 

There are a few general rules which no doubt he will 
quickly learn. He will have to bear in mind the date of 


the introduction of ivory, and know that a miniature 
painted on that substance must, at least, be later than the 
time of Queen Anne, Bernard Lens having had, so far as 
we know, the honour of introducing the use of ivory for 
miniature painting. He will know that a miniature 
painted on a playing card should belong to Elizabethan 
or to Stuart times, and he will, after a while, be able to 
pick out, by the shape of the pips on the card or by its 
texture, the original from the forgery, if, by good chance, 
he happens to come across a genuine Elizabethan minia- 
ture, and is able to examine the back of it. Then he will 
begin to accustom himself to a certain knowledge of 
■costume. If he finds a portrait of a man in undoubtedly 
Elizabethan costume, or in that of Stuart times painted on 
a large piece of ivory, he will at once decide in his own 
mind that it is either a reproduction of an earlier painting, 
prepared for illustration in one of the portrait books of 
the time of George III., or else it is a forgery, wholly 
modem, for painted on that substance, it could not possibly 
be a portrait prepared ad vivum. The same thing would 
apply if he found a portrait of a man in armour, he would 
know that it must belong to an earlier period than the 
use of ivory would warrant. And so, from the first, the 
material upon which the miniature is painted will have 
some sort of information about it which will convej' 
Icnowledge at once to his own mind. Ideas of technique 
and knowledge of colouring must come much later. Infor- 
mation about signatures is also a matter of later acquisi- 
tion, but at the same time he ought to start with some 
general knowledge of these, and he should use some judg- 
ment as to where he bu3's his portraits. A collector, a 
little while ago, purchased in Nice, of all places in the 
world, three miniatures purporting to be works by Cosway, 
Plimer and Engleheart, forgetful of the fact that in such a 
town as Nice preparations are made to beguile the unwary, 
and to have fine showy objects, at high prices, for the 


delectation of those who have money, all at once, to spend, 
and who perhaps spend it without much judgment. Paris, 
Brussels, Nice, are not quite the cities where one would 
expect to find important English eighteenth-century 
miniatures, especially at bargain prices. Purchasing on 
the Continent must always be effected with a rather 
graver sense of responsibility than in England, because 
there are regular schools of copyists in many places, especi- 
ally in Brussels, and some of the copies are done with 
extreme skill and accuracy. Let it be remembered, with 
regard to one miniature painter, what has already been 
mentioned, that Cosway practically never signed on the 
face of the miniature, and therefore anything signed by 
him in that fashion may at once be rejected. The same 
thing would apply to a full-length signature by Plimer 
or Engleheart, as these men signed with their initials, 
and many of the forgeries bear their full names. Further- 
more in buying miniatures, it is as well to have with one a 
card on which may be marked the dates of birth and death 
of certain notable artists, as a guide to collecting, and if, 
on this card, the names also of some of the kings and 
queens and of some of their more notable followers should 
also be mentioned, it would be all the better, for I myself 
have been offered a portrait of Elizabeth painted by Samuel 
Cooper, and a portrait of Queen Anne painted by an im- 
portant late eighteenth-century miniaturist, and a card of 
reference of dates will prevent a purchase of this kind 
being made. 

The general collector should be recommended, in form- 
ing his collection, to buy freely. He must make up his 
mind to be taken in, sometimes — even the best experts have 
occasionally to confess to a slip — and this course is sure to 
happen to the young collector — but he will buy his experi- 
ence, and it will thus be the more precious to him. It 
will be well not to buy at too high a price -if the miniature 
offered is a really early one, he will hesitate and, I hope. 


take someone else's advice — but on the whole, it is well to 
sweep into the early collection a large number of portraits, 
more or less good, and then gradually to reject those that 
are not satisfactory, and to retain those that are important, 
in this way building up a fabric of real experience, very 
precious and very valuable. 

The other type of collector, to whom allusion has already 
been made, will pursue quite a different method. He will 
determine to have only of the best. He will possess 
means, more or less substantial, at his disposal, and will 
wish to use these means to the best possible advantage. 
He will consequently find out some reliable dealer or 
friendly expert, will make arrangements for the benefit 
of their advice, and will buy only under such adWce. There 
are great advantages, no doubt, in this form of collecting, 
but it is one that can be adopted by very few people, and 
I am inclined to question whether, in purchasing in this 
fashion, there is anything like the joy to the collector, as 
compared with the satisfaction of the general collector 
who enters with great avidity into the pursuit of his 
hobby, and who slowly builds up his collection. I very 
much doubt whether the more careful collectors can thus 
acquire anything like the amount of knowledge that the 
general collector may hope to obtain. Reliance on other 
people is not the best method of obtaining experience. 
Still, the possession of fine things is alwaj'S a joy, and 
slowly the general collector, surrounded only by choice 
examples, will polish his taste, and acquire a knowledge of 
what is really first-rate, which probably it \vill be difficult 
for the other man to obtain ; but, for many years, the 
special collector must place his reliance on those who guide 
him, because the ordinary means of buying experience are 
denied to him. Here, again, it may be well to offer a word 
of caution as to the selection of the dealer or expert. Some 
kind of business arrangement should be entered into ^^ith 
the person who is employed. It should not be to the 


dealer's advantage to offer to the collector the highest 
priced portraits. The fee that he should obtain ought not 
to be based upon the intrinsic value of the portrait, other- 
wise the temptation comes that the dealer will recommend 
a highly priced miniature, even though he may be a little 
doubtful of its authenticity, or its condition, by reason of 
the commission which will accrue to him from the purchase. 
It will not be difficult to enter into some plan by which a 
definite fee for each miniature purchased ; or a fee covering 
a certain number of miniatures ; or a fee for advice, 
irrespective of purchase ; may be arranged, and the pur- 
chase, if it can be planned, should not be made exclusively, 
or even generally, from the adviser. It would be well if 
the special collector could obtain the services of an expert 
who would have no interest in the purchase, and whose 
privilege it would be simply to give an opinion to the best 
of his knowledge. He might then be asked to substantiate 
his opinion by a statement of the reasons which cause him 
to form it, and from these documents or verbal statements 
the collector will gradually possess criteria upon which to 
base his experience. 

We now arrive at the second question, the miniatures 
having been purchased, what should be done with them ? 
Here I want to urge the collector to make up his mind to 
open every miniature which he collects. It will not be 
easy for him to do so ; some of them are so skilfully fastened 
into their frames that to open them and remove the min- 
iature is a matter requiring some judgment and skill. It 
will be well to take the advice of an ordinary working 
jeweller in such a matter, but not to hand the miniature 
to the man in question, and to leave it with him. This for 
several reasons, the chief being that it is important that 
the collector should see everything that is contained in the 
frame, not only the miniature itself, but all the paper or 
cardboard that is used for the backing. One can never 
tell what may be found inside the frame, and the opening 


of the miniature should take place in the presence of the 
collector, or the jeweller should be told that every scrap of 
material that is found inside the frame must be retained 
for the owner's inspection. To remove the tiny little 
pins that fasten the two halves of the gold frame together 
is generally a matter of some difficulty which can only 
be accomplished by means of jewellers' tools. After a 
while, perhaps the collector will learn how to do it himself ; 
but even if he does, he will be wise to take the advice of a 
craftsman. Then, having opened his portrait, he will 
examine it with a magnifj'ing glass with great care. He 
may, perhaps, descry the initials of the artist, painted on 
the extreme edge of the portrait, and in many instances 
covered up by the mount or the frame. He will determine 
the material upon which the miniature is painted, whether 
ivory or cardboard, paper or vellum, and he may by that 
means find out its period and character. He will be almost 
deceived at first by some of the materials which so cleverly 
imitate ivory. Unless he possess rare judgment, he will 
mistake some of these compositions for actual ivorj', 
until he has the miniature actually in his hand ; and even 
then he must be careful, because there is a material now 
in use which so closely resembles ivory that even an able 
expert is occasionally puzzled by it. Its presence will, 
however, enable him to know at once that the object in 
his hands is a modern forgery, because no such material 
was known in the eighteenth century. Then he Mill scruti- 
nise the pieces of paper that have been used at the back of 
the miniature, or to set it in its frame, because, in some 
instances, he ^^ill find written upon them information of 
value. Sometimes, the artist gives his name and address 
and date upon such backmg paper ; sometimes the name 
of the sitter, and his or her position in life, is marked ; some- 
times, if the artist has himself put the miniature into its 
frame, there are bits of paper upon which portions of his 
own sketches are preserved, used in backing up ; and occa- 


sionally, there are notes in the handwriting of the artist, 
or of some other person, of the greatest possible importance. 
There was once a lady who sat to Cosway, and the artist, 
after commencing the portrait, had a quarrel with his fair 
sitter and refused to finish the work. He sent the portrait 
back again to the lady, a Mrs. Whittington, with an inscrip- 
tion written upon it which conveyed his opinion of her 
character. It read thus : " Impatient of advice, excessive 
pride upon a false foundation, a specious exterior, an 
unfeeling heart, inconstant, ungrateful ; and the writer 
of this may justly add ; as he has woefully experienced it, 
cruel and mercenary." Here, indeed, was a revelation, 
proving how bitter was the quarrel between the artist and 
his sitter, and how revengeful was the artist himself. It 
did not appear from this particular miniature that the 
inscription had at first been seen by the lady in question, 
because the piece of paper containing it was covered over 
by another ; but a later possessor had discovered it, and 
had given a glass back to the miniature (a wise arrangement, 
often to be recommended), and through this glass could 
be seen the whole of the inscription, which a long time 
before the artist, in his bitter feeUng, had written. It is not 
often, of course, that such a piece of evidence as this 
comes to light, but on a portrait belonging to the Duke of 
Portland was found an inscription reading thus: "The 
finishing this picture and another, which Mr. Graham took 
away, is not paid for," and this statement, although proved 
not to be in the handwriting of Cooper himself, who painted 
the miniature, is yet one of great importance, and gives us 
the information that the miniature belonged to Graham the 
collector. On another similar portrait, representing a 
young girl of about sixteen, some one, presumably the 
artist (although we cannot be absolutel}^ certain of his 
handwriting), has written the words " Tiresome, fidgety," 
and it is to be presumed that these two adjectives refer 
to the girl who sat for the miniature. Yet on other in- 


stances there are notes by the artist as to his having painted 
other portraits of the same person, or brief biographies, 
or allusions to the fact that he had painted the lady before 
her marriage, and giving her maiden name, or statements 
that the miniature had been painted in Bath, or Bristol, or 
wherever the sitting took place, or that it had been finished 
in London, or that it had been framed by Orme or some 
other framer of the day, or a statement of its cost, or a 
number which may refer to a numbered list in the artist's 
own notebook. All these interesting things can only be 
found when the miniature is opened, and they should be 
recorded very carefully by the collector in his notebook. 
This notebook he should start as soon as he takes up col- 
lecting, and in it he should put down the date when he 
purchased the portrait, where it was obtained, what he 
gave for it, what was the result of the examination, and 
whose work he considers it to be, and then this last piece 
of information may be altered in the light of later experi- 
ence or in the judgment of some expert whom the collector 
may consult. If he is quite certain whom the portrait 
represents, it will be well to incur the small cost of inscribing 
the name upon the frame, but here we enter upon a question 
of some complexity. An expert of the highest repute, 
Mr. Charles F. Bell, who has charge of the Ashmolean 
Museum at Oxford, in an essay dealing with historical 
portraits, used these words : " In no branch of iconography 
is so much caution and scepticism required as in dealing 
with miniatures," and in this statement Mr. Bell is un- 
doubtedly correct. The dealer and the collector are both 
far too apt to give names to the portraits. A named por- 
trait is, of course, more interesting than one that has no 
name. It is more delightful to look at a miniature and 
to say it represents Lord Clarendon, Queen Anne, Samuel 
Pepys, Queen Elizabeth, the Duke of Marlborough, or 
Kitty Fisher, than to have to say " it represents a man or 
a woman whose names are unknown to me " ; but at the 


same time it is dangerous, nay more, it is even fraudulent 
to attach a name to a miniature about which there is con- 
siderable doubt. It is permissible to say, " Believed to 
represent Lord Clarendon," or the person whose name the 
portrait is supposed to bear, or the phrase may be varied 
to the effect that it is suggested this represents so-and-so, 
or the initials on the back appear to suggest that the por- 
trait represents such-and-such a person. There may be 
cases, and there probably will be many such, in which the 
authenticity of the portrait is known. The collector may 
buy from the family, portraits of members of that family, 
and it may be reasonably clear as to who the pictures 
represent, and in cases of unimportant persons, Mr. and 
Mrs. John Smith, and Mr. and Mrs. Henry Robinson, it 
will not be so serious an error to put the names that are 
given to the collector on to the portraits as it will be when 
these names represent persons of historic importance, who 
have occupied great positions in the world. In any case, 
if a minor dealer presents the collector with a miniature 
and says " This represents Queen Anne, or Samuel Pepys," 
the statement should be received with the utmost caution, 
and the name should not be fastened upon the miniature 
until very careful investigation has been made by its new 

The miniature having been opened, all that was found 
within the frame should be replaced, not a scrap should be 
left out. The portrait should then be closed up with great 
security, so that the damp cannot reach the miniature. 
The glass should be dried carefully, and with particular 
care if the day on which the opening takes place happens 
to be a moist one, because it is of the highest importance 
that no moisture should be introduced into the miniature, 
it may start a fungoid growth which will be very detri- 
mental in later years. The opening and the replacing 
should, if possible, take place in a warm room, and the 
glass, the mount, and the frame should be held for a 


moment or two before the fire to ensure their being abso- 
lutely dry. Then the miniature should be deposited in a 
cabinet or in a glass case, and here again a few words of 
caution are advisable. Miniatures, especially those painted 
on ivor}^ are very liable to change in colour. They should 
never be placed in a cabinet or case opposite to a window. 
They should never be hung in that position in the room 
which is in some ways the most natural for them, over the 
mantelpiece, because they should not be exposed to the 
changes of temperature that particularly belong to that 
wall of the room. This is a recommendation that is con- 
stantly ignored. Over and over again, miniatures are to 
be found on the mantelpiece, or hung in frames over the 
mantelpiece, wholly regardless of the fact that, during a 
certain season of the year, that wall is warmer than any 
other w'all in the room, while throughout the summer it 
has no more warmth than the other walls, and, in fact, 
being an inside wall and not exposed to the light of the sun, 
is even colder than other walls of the room which maj' have 
a southern aspect. Miniatures should be guarded from 
extremes of temperature. Ivory is liable to curve under 
heat ; if it gets very dry, the colours may perish from it ; 
if it gets damp, there may come a fine growth on the 
ivory, or on the glass, which may interfere with the colour. 
To sum up, a collection of miniatures should be treated 
with the care that beautiful objects demand, and housed 
with as scrupulous attention as one would give to the 
most precious or to perishable things. The best method 
for protecting miniatures is to have them in a little cabinet 
away from direct light, illuminated perhaps by an electric 
lamp, which can be put on when necessary, and when not 
needed, may be switched off and guarded by a curtain or 
a blind which falls over the case, and protects its contents 
from the heat or the actinic effect of sunlight. To each 
miniature should be attached a label bearing a number. 
This may be a small gummed label, fastened on to the glass. 


or on to the back of the portrait, or, better still, a little 
metal label attached to the ring, and the label should 
correspond as to number with a catalogue which the col- 
lector should himself prepare. Ilowever small the col- 
lection, it should be catalogued, and the catalogue should 
contain all the information that can be gathered up. 
From time to time, no doubt, the collector will vary his 
information, and the catalogue will show evidence of in- 
creasing knowledge and experience, but it should be in 
existence from the beginning, as a help to the memory of 
the collector, as a guide to his knowledge, and as a means 
of identification. 

Finally, we come to the third section of the subject, 
the study of the'portraits. As regards the persons depicted, 
a collector should make up his mind to examine books of 
portraits, collections of drawings and collections of prints. 
If he is going to collect in serious fashion, he should take 
out a ticket, if resident in London, for the Print Room at 
the British Museum, and should often visit that delightful 
room, and examine all the known engravings or drawings 
of the person whose portrait he imagines he possesses. 
He will sometimes find he has in his possession the 
actual miniature from which an engraving is made, but, in 
more instances, he will find that the evidence is in the 
contrary direction, and will have to relinquish the idea that 
the portrait represents the person whose name he would 
so gladly have attached to it. Attention given to por- 
traits will gradually help him to decide. He can do so in 
no other satisfactory fashion. 

As to the artist who painted the portraits, he will do 
well to give careful study to the information contained in 
this book, and in others written upon the subject. He will 
do well to form, slowly but steadily, a library of books 
dealing with miniatures. Some are quite inexpensive, 
and could readily be obtained. For others he may have 
to watch the catalogues of the second-hand booksellers for 


a long period, and his search may eventually be rewarded. 
Some, and the best of all, may probably be beyond his 
reach. Some are only privately printed, and others that 
are issued are very costly, but he should take every oppor- 
tunity of examining them, if the chance occurs, and most 
could be found, for the advantage of the London resident, 
either in the British Museum or in the excellent Art Library 
of the Victoria and Albert Museum. For those living in 
the provinces, there are, of course, greater difificulties, but 
in many places there are good reference libraries being 
formed, and also collections of prints and drawings of 
great value to the iconographer. Brighton, for instance, 
is well served in this respect ; no provincial town could 
afford much better opportunities for research. Birming- 
ham and Liverpool, Bradford, Sheffield, Bristol, Bath, 
Plj^mouth and many other places are in like position, and 
these towns, and numerous other places, have collections 
of prints and drawings and of books of reference that will 
be found of great value to the collector. For those who 
live in yet more remote places, the difficulties, of course, are 
increased, but even they have chances, more or less fre- 
quent, of coming to the larger towns, and working at the 
subjects that interest them, and many of the books of 
reference dealing with miniatures are illustrated, more or 
less completely, and so are of great importance in train- 
ing up judgment. 

Study is essential ; the collector of miniatures is not a 
person who simply buys a few pretty things for the adorn- 
ment of his room without any knowledge of who the}^ rnay 
represent or who painted them. If he is to be a collector, 
he should be a student, and he must have a broad outlook. 
He must not be swayed by fashion, bu^dng only the works 
that happen to be popular at the moment, a fault that 
perhaps belongs more to the wealthy collector than to the 
general one, but still it has attached itself to each class. 
The special collector was at one moment paying exorbitant 


prices for the works of Plimer, because, at that instant, they 
were in great demand and everybody wanted them, the 
result, of course, being that miniatures by Plimer fetched 
an abnormal figure, and the ordinary collector could not 
touch them. The same thing applies to the works of all 
artists, whether the collector be fond of oil or water-colour 
drawings or miniatures ; but the satisfactory collection 
is that which contains examples of various periods, arranged 
if possible in chronological order, and affording a compre- 
hensive view of the rise and progress of an exceedingly 
interesting branch of art. There is a charm and a fascina- 
tion about these little treasures which cannot readily be 
equalled by anything else a collector may fancy. They 
can be found wherever he may go. He may add to his 
collection almost every month of his life, and may in time 
obtain quite a large number of miniatures which will 
delight him every time he examines them, and from which 
he may learn many a secret of colouring and method or 
technique. Moreover, if the idea is any satisfaction to 
him, he may rest assured that he is investing his money in 
excellent fashion, because selected miniatures are likely 
not merely to fetch their value if sold again, but 
generally speaking to show an advance upon the sum 
originally given for them, and a collection carefully and 
judiciously formed is likely to be a wise investment if 
ever it is to come into the market. This is perhaps the 
lowest point of view, but is none the less one that has to 
be borne in mind. It may safely be set aside by the col- 
lector from general consideration, as apart from it, he will 
find great joy in bringing together these dainty fragile 
objects, in looking up the history of the persons whom 
they represent, and of the painters who prepared them, 
of stud^'ing the different methods by which they were 
executed, and then of acquiring gradually to a full and 
definite appreciation of their fascination and beauty. 



ARISING out of the information given in the preced- 
ing chapter, it seems desirable to add some notes 
with regard to collections, because one of the chief 
methods by which those who are interested in miniatures 
may acquire the necessary knowledge concerning them is 
by the study of other miniatures in various collections, 
and by thus gradually training the eye to determine the 
character and style of each painter. This, in England, 
is not so easy as it should be. We have no national 
collection of miniatures giving a comprehensive chrono- 
logical view of the rise and progress of the art. There 
should be such a collection, undoubtedly, but at present 
the nearest approach to it is to be found in the Victoria 
and Albert Museum, especially in connection with the 
Salting bequest. This famous bequest contains examples 
of the work of many of the greatest miniature painters, 
and, moreover, examples which show them at their very 
best. As an instance, no finer representation of the work 
of Holbein could be desired than the portrait of Anne of 
Cleves, which he painted, so far as can be stated, at Duren, 
in July, 1539, for Henry VIII. In the same collection 
is to be seen a delightful full-length portrait by Nicholas 
Hilliard, and portraits by the same artist, both of 
Hilhard himself and of his father and of other pereons. 
Moreover, there is close at hand the portrait of the great 
Flemish illuminator, Simon Binninck, painted by himself ; 



some landscapes, also his work ; and the two wonder- 
ful portraits of the little girls which are attributed to 
his daughter, Lavina Teerlinck, and were painted at the 
English Court. Close beside these portraits may be found 
works by Isaac and Peter Oliver, by John Hoskins 
(notably those of Lady Catherine Howard and the Earl 
of Dorset), and some very fine ones by Samuel Cooper, 
two of the best representing Algernon Percy, Lord High 
Admiral, whom Clarendon described as " the proudest 
man alive," and the Earl of Sandwich, who fought at 
Naseby, and was blown up in his ship in 1672. The same 
collection contains five miniatures by Flatman, and 
representations of the work of Dixon and of Crosse ; while, 
in another case, there are several portraits by Cosway, 
one or two of them being important ; with typical works 
by Smart, some by Plimer, and examples of the work 
of Bogle, Hone, Nixon, Humphry, Jean and Engleheart. 
On the whole, this collection offers a fairly satisfactory 
\iew of miniature painting, supplemented as it is by 
miniatures by other artists in another part of the museum, 
and by the very fine French works in the Jones collection, 
although it could have been wished that circumstances 
had permitted the grouping of the miniatures in proper 
chronological fashion. The regulations binding these 
testamentary bequests prohibiting such a scheme, the 
student must make the best of the arrangement in force, 
journeying to different parts of the same muscimi, in order 
to acquire knowledge which could much more easily, had 
it been possible, have been gathered up in one room. 

The National Portrait Gallery contains a few miniatures, 
but they have not been collected because of the artists 
who painted, but exclusively on account of the persons 
whom they represent. 

The British Museum Print Room contains fine examples 
of the plumbago portraits which are alluded to in a 
separate chapter, and the student of this particular 


class of portraiture cannot adequately appreciate his 
subject without proper study of these examples. 

The Wallace collection at Hertford House possesses 
a large number of miniatures, mainly French portraits, 
but including representations, amongst others, of the 
work of painters as far apart as Holbein and Cosway. 
From the point of view of the foreign painters, however, 
this collection is highly important, and, as it has been 
skilfully catalogued, the cases will be found worthy of 
very careful study. 

In the Ashmolean Museum there are two large cases of 
miniatures, particularly rich in examples of the various 
workers in enamel, but also containing many fine specimens 
of English miniature art. There arc a few in the National 
Gallery in Ireland, some in the Bowes Museum at Barnard 
Castle, and a small but interesting collection in the 
Holburne-of-Menstrie ]\Iuseum at Bath ; this latter 
collection including half-a-dozen particularly fine portraits 
and some interesting examples of the work of the artists 
in plumbago. 

Generally speaking, miniature painting is not strongly 
represented in the provincial galleries. There are a few 
examples at Birmingham, and almost every provincial 
gallery contains one or two miniatures, but they have not 
been selected specially to represent the work of the artists, 
but, as a rule, possess other claims for consideration. 
During recent years, the collector has, however, had the 
advantage of seeing one of the most notable collections 
of miniatures under particularly favourable circumstances, 
inasmuch as the Duke of Buccleuch and Oueensberry has 
lent his collection to the Victoria and Albert Museum, 
and a series of cases contain the famous miniatures, 
clearly exposed for public view. Moreover, the opportunity 
was taken to prepare a more accurate catalogue of this 
collection than has hitherto been in existence, and to the 
enterprise of the editor of " The Studio " we owe the 


fact that this catalogue (the work of Mr. Kennedy, an 
official at the South Kensington Museum) was produced 
in illustrated form, and made available, for the first time, 
for the assistance of the student. The collector should 
most certainly obtain this catalogue, which was issued 
by " The Studio," both in cloth and in paper, in 1917. 

Another owner. Earl Beauchamp, with similar generosity, 
permitted his miniatures also to be exhibited at South 
Kensington, and the public, therefore, had the opportunity 
of viewing and of studying these two famous collections, 
both of which had hitherto been closed to the ordinary 
sightseer. This has been a great advantage to the collector 
and the student. 

Occasionally, an opportunity may occur for the inspection 
of yet other collections. The King owns a very famous 
collection of miniatures, which is at Windsor Castle. It 
comprises some of the choicest works of Holbein, and many 
of the finest miniatures which Cosway ever painted. 
It is not, in any sense, a chronological collection. There 
are many omissions in it. The early period is particularly 
well represented, and some of the best artists of the 
eighteenth century display in this collection their very 
finest works ; but, on the other hand, many men are 
not represented at all, and, moreover, a considerable 
number of miniatures at one time at Windsor no 
longer rest in the castle, but have been scattered, by 
previous generations, far and wide. There is only a hand 
catalogue in existence, and this has been privately printed 
for the use of the Royal Family, and is not available for 
the use of the collector. 

Another important collection is that possessed bj^ the 
Duke of Rutland, at Belvoir Castle. It also has some 
notable miniatures in it, specially the two portraits of 
Sir Walter Raleigh and his son ; and, naturally, it includes 
portraits of many members of the Manners family, and of 
persons closely connected with the same house. There 


is a catalogue of the miniatures in existence, but it also 
was privately printed for the use of the family. 

Yet another important collection is that belonging to 
Lord Hothfield, and again there is a privately printed 
catalogue in existence, but occasionally the collector, 
properly accredited, may be afforded the opportunity 
of examining the miniatures in this famous collection. 
It has one distinctive quaUty, inasmuch as it is confined 
to the period of the eighteenth century and thereabouts. 
There are practically no representatives of Elizabethan 
or Stuart miniatures. There are a few recent ones, 
but, on the whole, it is representative of the min- 
iature painters who exhibited at the Royal Academy 
and other kindred exhibitions in the eighteenth century. 

There are some fine miniatures at Castle Howard, 
belonging to Lord Carlisle — these also have been catalogued 
for the use of the family ; and the same remark applies 
to the miniatures at Goodwood, belonging to the Duke 
of Richmond and Gordon ; to those at W'oburn, belonging 
to the Duke of Bedford ; to the collection once at Devonshire 
House, the property of the Duke of Devonshire ; and to 
those at Burghley, belonging to the Marquess of Exeter. At 
Ham House there is a tiny little room which contains a 
very famous collection of miniatures. These are family 
portraits of the utmost importance, none of which have 
ever been exhibited away from the house ; and most of 
them hang still in the little room and on the actual tapestry- 
covered walls, where they were originally placed when 
painted, in Elizabethan or Stuart times, and sent home 
to their owners. In some instances they still hang on the 
little hooks that were sewn into the tapestry by the 
chatelaine of the day, when she received the precious 
portrait and hung it in the place that had been selected 
for it. There is an account of the miniatures in an important 
book^ that was published on Ham House, written by Mrs. 
' In this the present writer had the privilege of assisting. 


Roundell, and there is no collection of miniatures so 
important in its own particular way as is this Uttle one. 
Ham House is not, however, shown to the public, and the 
room in which the miniatures are contained is so small 
that it is almost hopeless for a collector to expect any 
opportunity of entering it. 

Mr. Ward Usher has some fine miniatures in his 
possession in his house at Lincoln. He has been one of 
those wise collectors who, for years past, has sifted his 
collection with the greatest possible care, rejecting anything 
that was unsatisfactory and retaining only the very best. 
He has published a sumptuous book,^ and many of the 
miniatures are illustrated in colour, the reproductions 
having been made from his own exquisite copies in 
water-colour of the portraits in his possession. 

The Baroness Burdett-Coutts owned a considerable 
number of fine family miniatures, and added to them 
many remarkable works that she purchased on the Straw- 
berry Hill sale. All these are still in the possession of 
Mr. Burdett-Coutts, who survives her. The remaining 
portion of the Strawberry Hill collection was scattered 
in various other collections, but an important moiety, 
mainly portraits of the Digby family, came into the 
possession of Mr. Winglield Digby, of Sherborne Castle, 
and still belongs to him. It includes some very famous 
miniatures, to which Horace Walpole attached the utmost 

Earl Spencer has some very fine miniatures at Althorp 
Park ; there are some notable ones in the possession 
of Lord Derby ; some wonderful examples, especially 
in enamel, belong to Lady Dartrey and many fine French 
portraits are at Mentmore, belonging to the Earl of 
Roseberry. Others are at Waddesdon, in the possession 

' A volume dealing with his precious possessions called The 
Usher Colleciiou. The present writer was responsible for the pre- 
face to it. 


of Miss Alice de Rothschild ; and some exceedingly 
important early miniatures are at Minlcy Manor, the 
property of Mr. Laurence Currie. 

I must not forget to mention the collection at Ecton, 
belonging to Mrs. Sotheby, because, in certain respects, 
it is one of the greatest treasures in England. It comprises 
examples by the earliest masters, including one by Holbein, 
and others by Isaac and Peter Oliver, Hoskins, Cooper 
and the like. It is mentioned by Walpole, in his " Anecdotes 
of Painting," as then in the possession of an ancestor 
of the present owner. It was collected gradually, with 
great skill and judgment, at a time when there were very 
few collectors of miniatures in existence, and contains 
some of the finest miniatures there are in the country'. 
It is impossible for the ordinary collector to see it, but all 
the portraits in it have been photographed, and, at some 
time or other, there will probably be produced a book 
dealing with the collection in its entiret\'. 

Another choice little collection in England is that at 
Nuneham, belonging to Viscount Harcourt. Some of 
the miniatures in both these last mentioned collections 
have been, by kind permission, included as illustrations 
in this book. 

Most notable of all, perhaps, is the collection at W'elbeck 
Abbey, belonging to the Duke of Portland ; and this 
has been the subject of a specially good catalogue, probably 
the best that has ever been compiled of any collection 
of miniatures ; the work of the librarian, Mr. Goulding, 
who has been engaged in (he work for many years. The 
catalogue has been published in two foiTns : one for the 
private use of the Duke of Portland and his fiiends, which 
is inaccessible to the collector ; the other in Vol. IV. of 
the Walpole Society's " Proceedings," a work which is 
onl}^ issued to subscribers to the Walpole Society, but 
which may, occasionally, be obtained second-hand. The 
collector should make every possible effort to obtain this 


catalogue, because the information it gives, and the 
illustrations of the portraits, are almost essential to a 
proper appreciation of his subject. 

There are a few other collections in existence, notably 
those belonging to Sir Edward j\Iarshall-Hall and to Mr. 
Cunhffe ; but there are many other persons who own 
fine miniatures, and the collector will be well advised not 
to neglect any opportunity of increasing his knowledge by 
the inspection of miniatures belonging to other collectors. 
As a rule, there is no particular difficulty to a really 
serious, properly-accredited collector, in obtaining a sight of 
some of the treasures gathered up by others. Most collectors 
are ready not merely to show their treasures, but to 
discuss them with those who are interested in a similar 

Captain H. W. Murray, of Winchester, has some 
exceedingly lovely specimens, including one of the finest 
works by Cosway I have ever seen. 

On the Continent the collector will find a considerable 
number of beautiful examples of foreign work in the 
Louvre, but there is no collection equal in value to that 
possessed by the Queen of Holland. It is very seldom 
that these miniatures can be seen, but Mr. Lugts' book on 
the collection is very well illustrated, and is referred to in 
the bibliography. There are many fine miniatures in the 
Rijks Museum in Amsterdam, and they are well worth 
careful scrutiny. The Louvre collection will be found 
particularly important with regard to enamels by Petitot. 

In Denmark there are choice collections of miniatures 
in the National Museum, the Frederiksbourg Palace, 
the Rosenborg Palace, and in the private collections of 
various members of the Royal Family. 

In Sweden, they can be studied in the National Museum, 
and the Historical Museum at Stockholm, and in the 
National Museum at Gothenburg. There used to be a fine 
collection in Finland, belonging to Monsieur Sinebr^xhcff, 


but whether these have escaped the general destruction 
in that unfortunate region, I am not able to say. There 
were also some exceedingly fme miniatures in Russia, not 
only in the Hermitage Gallery at Petrograd, but in many 
of the private collections. There is no information, 
however, available concerning these, and I fear that many 
of the collections in that country that I have studied in 
past years have now disappeared altogether. There were 
several collectors of miniatures in Berlin before the War, 
but I have no information now as to what has become of 
their treasures. The same thing applies to Vienna. One 
of the museums there contains a wonderful series of the 
works of Fiiger, and there were some very important 
miniatures by him — some of the best he ever did — in the 
private collection of Herr Doktor Figdor, while there 
were other notable collectors in the city, but what has 
happened to them or to their collections, I am unable 
to say. 

In Italy, both in the Uffizi and in the Pitti Palaces, in 
Florence, there are collections of miniatures. The ascriptions 
on some of them are a little astonishing. Miniatures are 
given to Titian and Correggio, and to Tintoretto and 
Bronzino, upon what appears to me to be very slight 
■evidence indeed, as we have' very httle knowledge, of 
a definite character, whether these great masters ever 
painted miniatures. Certainly, some of the miniatures 
in Italy bear a resemblance to the larger \\orks which 
were undoubtedly by the same artists, but whether the 
miniatures are small reproductions by their pupils, or 
later copies, is a question that has not yet been settled. 
Man\^ of these miniatures are painted in oil, and of oil 
miniatures we know very little. There must have been 
<iuite an important school of miniature painters in oil in 
Holland, as well as in Italy, and many of the works were 
executed on small pieces of copper and silver, but of the 
painters of these portraits, or of their works, we have 


very scanty information, and there is still an opportunity 
for the preparation of a scholarly book dealing with the 
miniature painters in oil. 

There are a few notable collectors in Rome and in other 
parts of Italy. In Roumania, there are a few miniatures 
to be found both in Bucharest and in Sinaia, or there 
certainly le^ere some before the War, and it is believed that 
the collections are more or less intact at the present time. 

In Spain, there are some fine miniatures to be seen in 
the Royal Palace, and there are a few in the Prado Museum. 
There are also important portraits in the possession of 
many of the Spanish grandees, and there are a few other 
collectors in that country, and one certainly in Portugal. 

America possesses, in the famous collection of Mr. 
Pierpont Morgan, the largest and perhaps the most 
comprehensive of all the collections, because it includes 
examples of miniatures painted in England from the time 
of Holbein down to that of Rossetti, and in France from 
the work of Janet, who painted for Francis I., down to 
the painters of the nineteenth century, with especial 
reference to Augustiii, who was one of the very last great 
men to paint miniatures in France. The collection is a 
very large one, and includes many notable works, both 
in the English and the French schools. One of the finest 
works Holbein ever painted, the portrait of Mrs. Pemberton, 
is in this collection, and certainly the most notable series 
of the works of Plimer that has ever been brought together. 
Furthermore, there are important representations of the 
work of Hilliard, Oliver and Hoskins ; some splendid 
examples by Cooper ; and specimens by those who succeeded 
him, such as Dixon, Crosse, Lens and Spencer. The 
eighteenth-century painters are also well represented, 
and the collection is brought down to practically recent 
days. In foreign miniatures, it is equally complete, 
including some fine enamels by Petitot ; some exquisite 
examples of some of the rarer workers m enamel ; splendid 



works by Hall, the Swede ; by Dumont, Isabey, Gucrin 
and other great Frenchmen ; and a collection wholly 
unrivalled of the works of Augustin, including many 
unfinished miniatures, and an amazing series of his drawings 
and sketches. This famous collection has been exhaustively 
catalogued by me, and the catalogue, in four folio volumes,^ 
can be studied at the various museums. Mr. Morgan's 
is not the only important collection in America, although 
it is far and away the chief ; but there is a collection at 
Pittsburg ; a very fine one in New York belonging to Mr. 
George Gould ; there are some few miniatures at Boston ; 
a collector lives at Cleveland, and another at Santa Barbara ; 
and there are several well-to-do men in the States who 
are just beginning to understand the charm and fascination 
of miniatures. 

^ One edition contains hand-coloured illustrations, which will 
be found of service to the collector. 



THE student of English miniatures, in the future, will 
have a more difficult task than I have had in 
the past, in classifying them, and in attributing 
them to their rightful artists. The demand for old portrait 
miniatures has, of course, produced the usual result, and 
there have been many forgeries. In some instances, these 
have been intentional : for example, a dealer has purchased 
a fine English miniature, and the person who has sold 
it, having made it one of the conditions of sale that a 
reproduction should be supplied in lieu of the original, 
and even, in some cases, framed in similar fashion to that 
in which the old portrait was framed ; the condition has 
been carried out. For this purpose, leading dealers have 
employed skilful miniature painters to make reproductions, 
as accurately as possible, of the fine miniatures they have 
purchased ; and the modem painter, having had his 
instructions to copy the old miniature as well as he could, 
has done his utmost, and sometimes has produced a work 
calculated to deceive " even the elect." Sometimes the 
reason for the forgery has not been quite as satisfactory. 
There was one dealer, well known in London, who 
claimed to be a collector of miniatures by Cosway, and it 
used to be wickedly stated that the one thing his collection 
did not contain was a genuine Coswaj^ miniature. It was 
quite well known that in a small room, at the back of his 
shop, sat a skilful miniature painter, whose name I also 
happen to know, carefully copying the miniatures which 



the dealer purchased, so that in almost every case he was 
able to sell the same miniature two or three times over — 
that is to say, one person got the original, and others, 
who paid an equally high price, got the copies that 
had been made from it. 

Of these facts there is no doubt, and the result has been 
disastrous, because, as I have already stated, some of the 
copies are well painted and excellently calculated to deceive. 
That being so, it is important to know how the forgeries 
can be detected, and I have given much time to the 
investigation of this problem. Fortunatel}', one is able 
to determine quite definitely what colours were in use 
at the time the original miniatures were painted, and what 
have been discovered and used since the eighteenth century. 
It is equally fortunate that some of the modem colours can 
be determined at a glance, provided that the investigator 
has carefully studied them beforehand, and is in possession 
of the necessary knowledge ; but, even if the eye failed 
and the knowledge is incomplete, it is possible, by the aid 
of chemistry, to determine, in many cases, whether the 
colour on the miniature be the right pigment or not. It 
is not impossible, in very doubtful cases, to remove a tiny 
scrap of the colouring from the edge of the miniature, to 
analyse it in a test tube, and then determine what the 
pigment may be. This operation requires, of course, the 
greatest possible care in a miniature. It is not so difficult 
to accomplish in a pastel portrait, and pastels have recently 
been forged quite as skilfully as miniatures. As a rule, 
close up to the edge of a pastel picture, one may remove 
(dexterously, of course) quite a substantial portion of the 
dry colour — very much more than one would dare to take 
in the case of a miniature — and then no deep knowledge 
of chemistry is needed to determine the nature of the 
pigment. Experience, however, is of the greatest possible 
importance in this determination, because it is not always 
possible to remove even the slightest portion of the 


pigment, and then, in these cases, no reUance can be laid 
on laws and regulations. Facility can only be acquired 
by dint of careful study and examination of miniatures. 

I have looked at miniatures all over Europe, and have 
studied them as carefully as I was capable of doing. I 
have also experimented with almost all the colours that 
have been or are now used, with the result that I can 
claim to be able to recognise many of the colours, used 
by the modem forger, at a glance. But this experience I 
can neither convey nor transmit, and it can only be acquired 
by those who follow me in the same arduous paths. I 
can, however, point out some general principles relative 
to the use of pigments. 

The chief colour in which the forger makes a mistake 
is blue. The old paintei-s used indigo ; ultramarine ; smalt, 
which has been in use since 1590 ; and Pnissian blue, or Ant- 
werp blue which came into use about 1720, and which 
always has a slightly greenish tinge. The modem painter 
uses cobalt blue, about which we knew nothing till 1804 ; 
ceruleum (or cerulean), which was introduced in 1861 ; blue 
verditer, which came in later still ; or artificial ultramarine, 
which was introduced m 1844 ; and, therefore, if we can 
once determine which blue is used in a miniature, we can 
be quite sure as to its authenticity or otherwise. Let it 
be borne in mind that there was no Pmssian blue before 
1704, or in general use before 1720 ; therefore one must 
not look for that shghtly greenish colour on the Elizabethan 
or Stuart miniatures. There, the blue would be indigo, 
ultramarine, or smalt. Smalt becomes pale and grey ; 
it contains cobalt and a silicate of potassium, and is very 
apt to whiten in tone. Real ultramarine has very little 
violet in it, and stands both the light and exposure to 
sulphur ; indigo oxidises and browns slowly, eventually 
vanishing if exposed to strong or continual light, leaving 
behind it perhaps a ghostlike effect of blue, and sometimes 
nothing at all, in places where one could have felt quite 


sure blue originally was. Cobalt is distinctly purplish in 
its tone by gas or by candle-light ; ceruleum, which is a 
cobalt and tin product, is again greenish and not purple 
by gas or candle-light. Artificial ultramarine, which did 
not come in till about 1830, is also somewhat of a purple 
or green tone, instead of being the clear, definite blue 
which the real lapis-lazuli ultramarine was. Cosway used 
a very fine, pure ultramarine. I have had a portion of his 
original colour and have analysed it. It is almost impossible 
to get such a blue nowadays, and if it could be obtained, 
its cost would be prohibitive. In consequence, the modem 
forger invariably uses ceruleum or the artificial ultra- 
marine for the bright blue patches which occur on the 
background of Cosway 's best miniatures ; and, if the blue 
can be identified, the expert's task is ended. There is no 
need to examine the other colours, because if he is assured 
by his own experience and eye, or better still by chemical 
analysis, that these modem blues have been used, he may 
be quite satisfied that the miniature in question is a 
modem production. 

There are, again, cases in which an eighteenth-century 
miniature painter, or Elizabethan or Stuart pamter, had 
used indigo, and the colour having browned and lost its 
brilliance, the forger has been called in to touch up and 
repair it. He is not at all likely to have used indigo in 
carrying out his work. He may have used smalt. He is 
quite likely to have used a very untrustworthy colour — 
verditer — in which the blue tone will rapidly become 
green ; but whatever he has done, if he has supplied a new 
blue in place of the indigo, he has spoiled the miniature 
as a work of art, and as an object of historic value, and, 
therefore, his restoration may be dismissed quite as 
definitely as if it were fully a forgery. 

The next most important colour, both in the miniature 
and the pastel picture, is the yellow, and here the modem 
pastel painter invariably goes wrong. It is not so very 


long ago that I was called in to examine a large pastel 
portrait, the subject of an important dispute in the Law 
Courts before the Lord Chief Justice, and I recognised, 
almost immediately, that the yellow in the picture, of 
which there happened to be a good deal, was that known 
as Indian yellow, a strange colour which is prepared as a 
salt of magnesia from the urine of cows in India that have 
been fed on mango leaves, an important and lovely colour, — 
but one we knew nothing about till the time of Victoria, 
whereas the pastel picture in question was signed and dated 
17S0. Fortunately, m this instance, it was quite easy to 
obtain a portion of the dry colour, to analyse it, and ascer- 
tain its nature, with the result that there was no more need 
for further evidence, and the picture was at once accepted 
as a forgery. 

The old painters used the ochres, or gamboge, or the 
lead colours which we know as Naples yellow and Chrome 
yellow, the former comparatively seldom, although, perhaps, 
it is one of the oldest yellow pigments known. Both Naples 
yellow and Chrome yellow are salts of lead, Naples yellow 
being an antimoniate, and they both of them blacken 
quickly. Orpiment is also used, and that, which is a 
sulphide of arsenic, fades to a peculiar primrose tint. The 
ochres and yellow lake, which is a bark pigment, are 
permanent. The gamboge bleaches by light and darkens 
by the influence of ammoniacal fumes. It also has a 
peculiar gleaming effect in lines, which sometimes enables 
one to recognise its use. 

The modern forger does not dream of using gamboge ; 
he knows well how speedily it fades. He does not care to 
use the ochres, because the colour is not sufficiently 
brilliant or transparent for his purpose, but he prefers 
to use a cadmium yellow, which was not introduced until 
1817, or that beautiful transparent cobalt and potas- 
sium salt known as aureolin, which came into 
use in 1862, even if he does not condescend to use 


vanadium yellow, which is an absolutely modem pig- 
ment, one of the products of tar. Cadmium, if it 
is used, becomes greyish and faded in colour, and, if 
adulterated with Indian yellow, shghtly brown. The 
lead colours are affected by the use of ammonia, but the 
eye is the best guide for detecting the modern yellows, and 
the presence of cadmium, of aureolin, Indian yellow or 
vanadium yellow is quite sufficient, of course, in many 
cases to enable the expert to dismiss the miniature as 
unworthy of further investigation. 

In the case of greens, the question is not quite so easy. 
The modem miniature painter is very fond of a chromium 
salt called viridian, or an arsenic salt known as emerald. 
One was introduced in 1838 ; the other in 1814 ; and, 
therefore, neither of them is to be found on the eighteenth- 
century pictures. The arsenite of copper, knouTi as 
Scheele's green, came into use about 1780, and, therefore, 
it is possible to find that colour on eighteenth-century 
pictures, but it was very little used. As a rule, the greens 
used by the old painters were verdigris, an acetate of cop- 
per, a quite unmistakable colour ; malachite, an equally 
unmistakable green ; or a green earth. But I have not 
found the greens as easy to determine as some other colours, 
and great care must be taken not to confuse them with 
the blues, which have become greenish in tone \\ith time, 
and which may, therefore, lead the investigator off the 
right lines. 

The reds used were red lead, oclires, cinnabar, fine 
vermilion, cochineal (which came into use about 1550), 
and the vegetable lakes, or lacs. There have not been 
many modern reds substituted for these, but it should 
be noted that the old vermilion was very superior in 
quality and in brilliance to the more modem article, and 
there is a certain sharpness about old vermilion which, 
once recognised, can never be forgotten. 

As regards white, that used was, of course, white lead, 


flake white, which becomes yellowish, greyish, or brownish. 
Zinc white is an unchanging pigment, and barytas is also 
a permanent colour, but these were not in use in the 
eighteenth century, and there was no zinc white till about 
1790, while it was really not used as an ordinary pigment 
until about 1840 ; therefore, if the white is pure, clear 
and brilliant, there is every probability that the portrait 
is a modern production. 

In blacks, the old masters used lamp black, which is an 
exceedingly opaque colour, bone black or ivory black ; 
Indian ink, which is really a form of lamp black, and the 
oldest black of all ; and sepia, or what we call graphite, or 
black lead. It is important, in examining blacks, to 
notice where the black touches a brilliant colour. The 
charcoal blacks decolourise the edges of other colours 
where they impinge upon them ; lamp black does not. 
The colour of Indian ink, once known to the eye, can 
always be verified ; the brownish tinge of sepia is also 
unmistakable ; while the peculiar metallic gleam of 
graphite can seldom be missed. Indigo black, which has 
a curious bluish tint, was not used, and if that is to be seen, 
the picture may be condemned. 

I happen to know exactly what colours were used by 
Plimer and by George Engleheart, as their colour boxes 
have been preserved by their descendants. Certain of 
their colours were presented to me when I was preparing 
their biographies, and I acquired others from another 
source. I was also fortunate enough to obtain some of 
Cosway's pigments in Italy from the place where his 
widow died, and all these I subjected to very careful 
examination and then presented them, with some of 
Cosway's ivories, paper and brushes, and some relics of 
other artists, to the Royal Academy, where, in the Library, 
they find a permanent resting-place. 

Plimer obtained his colours from Robertson and Miller, 
of 31, Long Acre, or from The Art Colour Manufacturing Co., 


of 27, Hatton Wall ; purchasing a few of them from 
Newman, of Soho Square. 

Both Robertson's and Newman's are still in existence, 
and oddly enough, the latter house, one of very long 
standing and high repute, was founded by a man named 
Robertson, perhaps a connection of the founder of the first- 
named important colour-maker. 

Plimer's colours were flake white, lamp black, Indian 
ink, Vandyck brown, burnt sienna, bistre, burnt carmine, 
a fugitive colour made from the carmine in Cochineal ; 
three other Cochineal colours, crimson lake, scarlet lake 
and pure carmine ; vermilion (mercuric sulphide) and 
Venetian red, with a third red which appears to be 
compounded of stannic oxide, chalk, and a little chromate 
of potassium. This latter pigment was a permanent one, 
but the cochineal colours account for the strange brownish 
hue which has come over all the carnations in Plimer's 
miniatures when they have not actually — as has happened 
in many cases — entirely flown away. 

In blues, Plimer used ultramarine, smalt ; a potash 
blue, kno\\'n as TunibuU's blue, a colour which has a 
tendency to fade or become greenish ; and chessyliie, or 
blue verditer, in its native state, not the artificial prepara- 
tion given that name. Lumps of this material were found 
in his colour-box. 

In greens, he used the newly-discovered arsenite of 
copper, known as Scheele's green. It had only just come 
into use (1778), and by reason of its lovely colour was 
very popular, but it was a most unsatisfactory colour in 
every way. It was a deadly poison ; in water-colour it 
quickly oxidised ; and it was blackened by all the cadmium 
yellows, as the artists very quickly began to find out. 
He also used malachite green, which has just the same 
fault when cadmium comes into contact with it, and which, 
although fine in hue, is not a safe or reliable pigment ; 
and he used the native green oxide of chromium, an 


expensive and not very satisfactory colour. At the very 
end of his Hfe he seems to have used aureolin, which was 
just coming into occasional use as a curiosity, but was not 
a pigment in general use. 

Plimer's ultramarine was superb inquahty. I have never 
seen finer or more costly than what I found in his colour-box. 
His colours were mostly put up in tiny, thick, squat 
bottles ; he ground almost all his own pigments upon a 
block of Mexican onyx, mixed them in an agate bowl, 
and spread them upon palettes of Mother-o '-Pearl or 
ivory. He was a luxurious person ! 

Engleheart, on the other hand, kept all his colours in 
small, specially-made, round, ivory boxes with screw lids ; 
used only ivory palettes, ivory mixing-bowls, small ivory 
basins in sets, to fasten on to his palette ; and had ivory 
rests on which to place his brushes. 

He obtained his vermilion, Indian ink, flake white and 
gamboge direct from China, and his paper packets of these 
pigments bore labels to that effect, a Mr. Taylor obtaining 
them for him. His vermilion was of the very finest 
possible, and must have been in his day a most costly 

He also used a very fine ultramarine, smalt, lamp 
black, blue black, indigo, Prussian blue, sepia, iron black 
(prepared from rust), Indian red, Naples yellow, chessylite, 
malachite, Scheele's green occasionally, and, of course, 
the cochineal and madder colours, the siennas and the 
ochres. His carmines have generally fled, and his lakes 
have in many cases revealed the under-painting of green ; 
while his yellows, when they were gamboge, have usually 
vanished more or less completely. Where he used 
verdigris or Scheele's green, the result has been as un- 
satisfactory, but his greens, obtained from green earth 
and malachite, have stood well. 

It is interesting to notice that in the treatise on modem 
miniature painting, written by Mr. Alyn Williams, the 


President of the Royal Society of Miniature Painters, the 
colours especially recommended for use are viridian, 
ceruleum, cobalt, orange, cadmium, aureolin, rose madder, 
and Chinese or zinc white, not one of which, with the 
possible very occasional use of a form of Chinese white, 
were in use by the painters of the eighteenth century, 
and he expressly mentions the use of peroxide of hydrogen 
for bleaching ivories. This is, of course, quite a modem 
procedure, and ivories bleached by peroxide can be easily 
detected by anj^ chemist who has a proper knowledge of 
his profession. 

It must not, however, be forgotten that it is far easier 
to detect what pigment has been used in pastel-work than 
in water-colour. In the former the colours are pure, 
simple, and well-defined ; in the latter there are admixtures 
which complicate the problem ; but with care and precision, 
many of the wrong pigments can be detected, however 
tin}^ is the portion that is under examination ; and in 
some instances the practised eye can detect the pigments at 
a glance, by reason of the changes that have taken place 
in them, their oxidation, or their fading, or the hues 
they assume under artificial light, or, as a last resource, 
in the spectroscope. 

Again, careful attention in judging miniatures must be 
given to the appearance of the ivory. The earlier masters 
did bleach their ivories sometimes ; they experimented 
in various directions ; they sometimes roughened the 
surface of the ivory, very slightly, to give it a little tooth, 
by which the colours would bite on to it ; and sometimes, 
on the other hand, they polished it to a bone or egg-shell 
gloss. These characteristics can be recognised at a glance. 
The modem ivory is, as a iiile, bleached, and to a very 
pale colour. It is also polished both sides ; the old ivories 
were seldom polished on more than one side. The old 
ivories have yellowed, and are stained a little at the edge 
where the gold beater's skin has touched them ; generally. 


in fact, all round the edge, where they have been fastened 
up to the gold-beater's skin. If the ivory has yellowed, 
it should be noticed whether it has yellowed in the right 
place. If the change of tint has taken place as much under 
the gold-beater's skin as in the centre, then the yellowing 
is artificial and intentional, and the miniature must be 

As regards the portraits painted on cardboard, they are, 
as a rule, painted direct on to pieces of old playing-cards, 
or else on to a thin parchment, or chicken-skin, mounted 
upon pieces of old plapng-cards ; and a careful scrutiny 
will generally enable the expert to determine whether 
the playing-card is a genuine old one or not, because 
playing-cards are not easy things to copy, and the quahty 
of the card and the irregularity of the printing will 
enable the old ones to be detected. It should be 
noticed, moreover, that the modem cardboard [is rather 
more porous than the old ; that the colour on a forged 
miniature sinks into the cardboard more than it does in 
the old ones, and does not lie as much on the surface. 
In the old one, the colours can be felt above the card. 
The old test of a pin can also be used with regard to an 
antique miniature, but it must be employed very discreetly. 
The pigment on an Elizabethan portrait is quite hard ; 
on a modem miniature, far softer. 

The playing-cards on which the Tudor miniatures are 
painted must be examined, not only for their composition 
and quality, but as regards the printing upon them. The 
red suits, hearts and diamonds, do not differ so completely 
in the old suits from those used in modem days, but the 
clubs and spades were differently drawn in Tudor days. 
Even if they are forged, and such a thhig is not infrequent, 
the raw or broken edge of the older print is very different 
to the sharp definition of the forgery on the modern card, 
and the irregular and incomplete printing of the pip to 
the modem (or forged) solid black effect. 



THIS handbook would scarcely be complete without 
some reference to the miniature painters who 
practised in the United States, though the ama- 
teur collector is not very likely to come across examples of 
their work. They are, however, to be found occasionally 
in sale rooms ; and, in fact, it was announced that some 
examples of the best of the American miniature painters 
were likely to be offered during this very year in London . 
It will be well, therefore, to give such information as is 
here available concerning the American miniature painters. 
The best of them was, undoubtedly, Malbone, who has a 
high reputation both here and in America, and has been 
compared with some of the best English and French 
artists. He was bom at Newport in 1777. and, while j-et 
a boy, painted a scene for a theatre. At seventeen, he 
was fully established as a portrait painter at Providence ; 
thence he migrated to Boston, and afterwards to New 
York, Philadelphia and Charleston, going to the latter 
city in conjunction with Washington AUston. In 1801, 
he and Allston came over to England, mainly with the 
view of seeing Benjamin West, who was at that time 
President of the Royal Academy. He was much interested 
in their work, and ad\'ised Malbone to remain in England, 
but the latter was not very happy in this countr\', and so 
returned to Charleston, where he became an accomplished 
painter of miniatures. One of his best-knowTi portraits 



is that of Matilda Hoffmann, the girl to whom Washington 
Irving was engaged, and he also painted the portrait of 
Rebecca Gratz, a young Jewess, who was referred to by 
Irving, and who is stated to have been the original type 
for the character of Rebecca of York, in Sir Walter Scott's 
novel, " Ivanhoe." 

The work of Malbone is light, delicate and sketchy ; 
it is graceful in colouring, and has a particular charm. 
He was pronounced to be very skilful in obtaining a 
likeness ; and his work was in such great demand that he 
injured his health by his assiduity at his profession, and 
eventually had to abandon the art altogether. He went 
to Savannah, where he died, in 1807, at the age of thirty- 
seven. During the last few years of his life, he worked in 
conjunction with a personal friend, one James Eraser, 
who was also quite a skilful miniature painter. Eraser 
was originally brought up as a lawyer, but gave up the 
study of law for art. Meeting with Malbone, they appear 
to have joined forces, and worked for a while together. 
Eraser also lived at Charleston, and there, it is stated, 
he died. 

The next notable miniature painter of America was really 
an Englishman, Thomas Sull}'. He was bom at Honicastle, 
in Lincolnshire, in 1783, and died at Philadelphia in 1872. 
Some of his best work was done at Charleston, where 
his parents had settled when he was quite a small boy. 
His principal education was earned on at Richmond, 
in Vermont, and, later on, he lived at Norfolk, returning 
every now and then to Charleston to see some of his 
old friends. He married, in 1806, his brother's widow, 
and then went to New York and Boston, in the latter 
city receiving some instruction from Gilbert Stuart. Then 
he came over to England, attracted, as were the other 
men, by the presence of Benjamin West, and he studied 
in this country for some time, not returning to New York 
till 1810, and then quickly moving to Philadelpliia, where 


he died. He is better known as a portrait painter than a 
miniaturist, and there is no doubt that his finest work 
was shown in larger portraits, some of which are of consider- 
able beauty ; but he produced some delightful miniatures, 
and some brilliant sketches on ivory, probably preparatory 
for miniatures. 

He had a nephew, Robert M. Sully, who was bom in 
Petersburg, Vermont, and instructed by his uncle. He 
practised mainly in Virginia ; but he also came over to 
England, in 1824, and made the acquaintance of Northcote, 
whose portrait he painted, and who encouraged him to 
study in this country. Very little is known of his work 
in miniature, and his larger portraits are not frequently 
to be met with, but are of unusual importance. 

The best known of the American painters is probably 
Gilbert Stuart, who was American bom, having first seen 
the light in the State of Rhode Island, in 1755. He also 
came over to England to West, and worked in the 
President's studio for some years, rising into considerable 
eminence as a portrait painter, and having a wide acquaint- 
ance among the higher class of English society. His work 
was appreciated even duiing the lifetime of Sir Joshua 
Reynolds, \vith whose productions it was sometimes 
compared, and with favourable results to Stuart. He went 
back to America in 1793, just at the time when he was at 
the height of his popularity here, but he preferred to be 
back in his own country, and was especially desirous of 
painting a portrait of Washington, which eventually 
proved to be his greatest work. He had painted, while 
in England, portraits of Reynolds, Alderman Boydell, 
Dr. Fothergill, and many other people, and when he 
retumed to America he painted the President of the 
United States several times, and became exceedingly 
popular on account of his splendid work. For a while 
he was in Philadelphia and Washington, and then, in 
1805, he went to Boston, and there it was that he died. 


It has always been known that he painted a few 
miniatures, but there was nothing very definite to which 
his name might be given, until a portrait of John Henderson, 
the actor, came into the Wellesley collection, and this 
portrait, which was engraved by Coyt in 1787, and is 
fully described in the " Proceedings " of the Massachusetts 
Historical Society for 1915, is an extraordinarily fine 
piece of work, painted on a curiously prepared piece of 
canvas, and signed by Stuart on the reverse. There is 
another miniature b}' him, representing John Knox, which 
is in the Drexel collection at Philadelphia ; and he is 
said to have painted one or two more, but of that it is 
impossible to speak with certainty. Of Knox he certainly 
painted two miniatures, because one of them came up 
for sale in February in Philadelphia, and was an exquisite 
little work, representing the General in uniform, with his 
left hand resting upon a cannon. It was rather large for 
a miniature, measuring about 8 in. X 5 in., but was painted 
in miniature fashion, and was exceedingly interesting. 
Perhaps the most notable small thing Staart ever painted 
was the portrait of Washington, which he executed, in 
water-colour, on silk — a tiny thing, about 5 in. x 4 in. 
It formed part of the flag that the people of Germantown 
decided to present to the mihtia of the community. It 
was painted in a barn which was fitted up as a studio, in 
Main Street, Germantown, Pennsylvania. Stuart was 
responsible for the whole of the flag, it is stated, but there 
is no question of his having painted the portrait of 
Washington which appeared on one side of it ; and later 
on, after the flag had done service, it was presented to 
Mr. Bringhurst, who was the owner of the bam where the 
work was executed, and came down, in direct succession, 
to the member of the family who sold it this year. The 
flag was cut up amongst various claimants of the Lehman 
family, the portrait, of course, being by far the most 
interesting part of it. 


John Trumbull is probably the best known of the actual 
American miniature painters. He again was an American 
born, having come into the world at Lebanon, Connecticut, 
in 1756, but he, like all the rest, came over to England 
to see Benjamin West. Unluckily, in this journey in 
1780, he went first of all to France, and brought with him 
to West a letter from Benjamin Franklin, which caused 
his arrest for treason, and for a while Trumbull found 
himself in prison, but eventually, through the efforts of 
West and Copley, he was permitted to return home. In 
1784, he was back again in England, stud^ang under 
West, and then, after journeying about on the Continent, 
he went back to New York, where he settled down, and 
eventually died in 1843. 

His miniatures are very acceptable works, especially 
those where he left the portrait, to a certain extent, 
incomplete, just sketching in the draperies and accessories, 
and devoting all his attention to the head, which is, as a 
rule, drawn with superb mastery. A portrait of General 
Mercer, in miniature, is often considered to be one of his 
finest works, and he painted, of course, portraits of both 
General and Mrs. Washington. He was aide-de-camp 
to Washington during the Revolutionary War. One of 
his miniatures is in the Pierpont Morgan collection ; 
another was in the Wellesley collection ; and they are in high 
repute in America, and well worthy of the value that is 
given to them. As a matter of fact, Trumbull's miniatures 
are better executed than are his oil paintings ; and Mr. 
Charles Henry Hart, who knew more about American 
paintings than any other man, said that he attributed 
the fact to the unfortunate circumstance that Trumbull, 
towards the latter part of his Ufe, had only one e\'e ; that 
he did not see form and proportion quite normally, more 
especiall}^ as the sight of that one eye was somewhat 
astigmatic ; but in the miniatures, which he could hold 
up much closer to his face, he was a great deal more 


There has been more than one account of Trumbull's 
arrest while in England. Some writers have stated that 
it was because he brought over the letter from Franklin ; 
while others that it was more or less connected with the 
acquaintance with Major Andre. Whatever the reason 
may have been, he appears to have spent nearly seven 
months in prison ; but it did not alter his opinion of this 
country, and he came back again as quickly as he could, 
and then made the acquaintance of LawTcnce, and worked 
with him for some time. 

Another notable American mmiature painter was Charles 
Wilson Peale, who was bom in Chest ertown, in 1741, and 
died in 1827. It is hardly necessary to state that he, hke 
all the rest, studied under West. The President was 
always interested in his fellow-countrymen, and had quite 
a little group of them in his studio at different times. 
Peale was an interesting man, perhaps the most versatile 
of all the American artists, because at various times he 
practised coach-building, harness-making, clock and watch- 
making, silversmiths' work, dentistry and taxidermy, 
giving an enormous amount of interest, during the whole 
of his life, to anything connected with natural history, 
and becoming quite successful in setting up birds and 
other creatures in their natural mode. He was introduced 
to Copley in 1766, when the artist was in Boston, and there 
Peale made his first attempt at artistic work, painting a 
miniature of himself. At that moment he was also studying 
under Hesselius, the son of Gustav Hesselius. He was 
with him about a year, and then he came over to England. 
At first, he did not give up his attention to portrait paint- 
ing, but he studied modelling in wax and cast moulding 
in plaster, and then mezzotint engraving ; but he found 
that his chief skill was in portraits, and so entered West's 
studio, and worked hard under him for some time. Then 
he came back to America, settling at Annapolis in 1769, 
and three vears afterwards went to Mount Vernon and 


painted the earliest known portrait of George Washington, 
executing, at about the same time, several miniatures 
of the President for Mrs. Washington, to be worn as 
bracelets or brooches. Thence he went to Philadelphia, 
and there he opened what was called Peak's Museum, in 
which he set up many of his natural history specimens, 
and for which he painted a great many pictures. 

He had two brothers, each of whom painted a little 
in miniature, St. George and James ; and the work of 
the younger brother is highly esteemed. Peale had three 
sons whom he called Rembrandt, Raphael and Titian, 
and a daughter, Ann. All three of them were artistic, 
Rembrandt being specially skilful in larger portraits, and 
eventually becoming President of the American Academy. 
He is said to have painted thirty-nine copies of his father's 
portrait of Washington, and seventy-nine copies of the 
portrait he himself painted of the President, the original 
of which he produced in 1795. He and his brother Raphael, 
like their father, both came over to England and studied 
under West. The daughter, who married Dr. Stoughton, 
and afterwards General Duncan, also practised miniature 
painting, and was successful. She appears to have exhibited 
under both names, as Mrs. Stoughton and as Mrs. Duncan. 

Another artist, who has more or less been forgotten 
until recent years, was Hugh Bridport, who was bom in 
London, but was induced by Thomas Sully to come to 
America and settle down at Philadelphia in 1816, w^here 
he painted a considerable number of portraits, some of 
them works of great beauty. One of his best was of Dr. 
Conwell, the Catholic Bishop of Philadelphia, and another 
was of Francis Hopkinson, one of the signers of the 
Declaration of Independence, and the brother of Thomas 
Hopkinson the poet, who was the author of " Hail, 
Columbia." Several of Bridport 's miniatures came into 
the market this year, and fetched high prices. They are 
works of unusual strength and merit. 


Bass Otis, a New England man, who was bom in 1784, 
and died in Philadelphia in 186 1, is said to have painted 
a few miniatures, but there is no very definite evidence on 
this score. He certainly produced some charming portraits, 
especially of children, and he was interested in lithography, 
and was one of the earliest to practise that art in America. 

There were various other painters who may just be 
mentioned. There was a Miss Goodridge, who was a 
pupil of Gilbert Stuart ; Benjamin Trott, who, in the 
early nineteenth century, was painting at Philadelphia ; 
Saint Menin, the clever engraver of profiles and portraits ; 
Robert Field, John Walters, John Ramage, George Free- 
man, Mary Wrench, and others ; but all the most notable 
have been already referred to, with one exception, James 
Sharpies, with whom should also be associated his wife, 
and perhaps their son James, and their daughter Rolinda. 
Sharpies, who is often known in the States as Sharpless, 
as he added a second " s " to his name while in America, 
derives his especial fame from the fact that Washington 
sat to him for a portrait in 1796, and that this was so 
successful that for years afterwards both he and his wife 
and daughter were busy making copies of it. Sharpies 
was an Englishman, who was bom in about 1750, and was 
intended for the Catholic priesthood. He exhibited in 
the Academy in 1779 and 1785, and then, marrying a 
lady of French extraction, determined to settle in America. 
He was captured en route, and had to spend some time 
at Cherbourg. He reached New York in 1796, became an 
American citizen, and was exceedingly popular, painting 
a large number of miniatures and small portraits. He 
died in New York in 1811, and then Mrs. Sharpies returned 
to England and exhibited miniatures of Washington and 
Dr. Priestley at the Academy. She became a woman of 
some means, owing to certain legacies, and had to do 
with the foundation of the Academy of Arts in Bristol, 
eventually bequeathing to it a considerable sum of money 


and many of her pictures. She had three children, who 
were born in America ; James returned with her and 
painted a few miniatures in England, and Rolinda also. 
They both of them practised at Bristol, and died there 
in 1839 ^^^ ^^3^ respectively. The third child, Felix, 
who also was responsible for a few miniatures and some 
larger pictures, appears to have remained in America and 
died there. 



AsPLUND, Karl. 

Den Svenska Portrait Miniatyrens Historia en Skiss. 
In Publikation Sallskapets. (Stockholm, 1916.) 

An interesting illustrated treatise, dealing with 
Scandinavian miniatures. For the standard work on 
the subject see below, Lemberger. 
Abeten af P. A. Hall i emalj pastell och olja. (1917) 
A charming and illustrated study in Swedish of 
the works of Hall. (See also under Villot.) 
Bayo, Joaquin Ezquefra del. 

Exposicion de la Miniatura-Retrato en Espafia, 1916. 
An illustrated catalogue of a recent exhibition of 
miniatures in Spain, almost the only work of any 
importance dealing with Spanish miniatures. 
BouciioT, Henri. 

La Miniature Frangaise, 1750-1825. (Paris, 1907.) 

The standard work on French miniatures. Large 
4to, richly illustrated. 
Do. do. With preface by M. Frederic Masson, without 
plates. (Paris, 1910.) Issued after M. Bouchot's 
decease, with some slight additions and an interesting 
preface. A small convenient handbook for the study 
of French miniatures. 
Burlington Fine Arts Club. 

Catalogue of the Exhibition of Portrait Miniatiues, 
4to edit, without plates. Folio edit, with many plates. 


Carlander, C. M. 

Miniatyr Malare i Sverige. (Stockholm, 1897.) 

A convenient book of reference, dealing with Scan- 
dinavian miniature painters, and giving considerable 
information respecting their history and work. 

Callimaki, Madame de Easily. 

Isabey. (Paris, 1909.) Limited edition. 

The standard work dealing with this important 
miniature painter. Large 4to size, richly illustrated. 

Elward, Robert. 

On Collecting Miniatures, Enamels and Jewellery. 
(Wallet Series, 1905.) Small inexpensive handbook. 

Edwards E. 

Anecdotes of Painters in England. (1808.) 

Intended as an addition to Walpole's " Anecdotes " 
and giving some important information respecting 
Enghsh miniature painters of the eighteenth cen- 

Ehrich Brothers. 

One hundred early American Paintings. (1918.) 

A most useful book of reference concerning American 
artists, well illustrated and very reliable. 

Foster, J. J. 

Miniature Painters, British and Foreign. (2 vols., 


Limited edition, richly illustrated. 
Do. British Miniature Painters and Their Works. 

Illustrated. Notable for information on American 
painters and on Thorburn. 
Do. Chats on Old Miniatures. (1908.) 

A small convenient handbook, illustrated. 
Do. Samuel Cooper. (London, 1914-16.) 

150 copies only. Very handsomely illustrated with 
photogravure plates. An important work, issued at 
a high price, and valuable for its illustrations. 



Catalogue of the miniatures in the possession of the 
Duke of Portland at Welbeck Abbey. (1916.) 
Do. do. Published in the Walpole Society's " Proceed- 
ings, Vol. IV. (1916.)" 

An exceedingly important catalogue, containing 
complete information concerning the painters and their 
Morks, brought right up to date. The two books are 
identical, the actual catalogue being issued in a 
limited edition by the Duke, but permission was 
given for its publication beforehand for the use of the 
subscribers to the Walpole Society. It is richly 
illustrated, the most important catalogue that has yet 
been issued, and a work deserving all possible praise. 

Graves, Algernon. 

The Royal Academy Exhibitions, 1769-1904, 8 vols. 


The Society of Artists and the Free Society, 1760-1791. 


The British Institution, 1806-1867. (1908.) 

A Dictionary of Artists, 1760-1893. (1901.) 

A Century of Loan Exhibitions, 1813-1912, 5 vols. 


Important works of reference dealing with the 
various artists and their exhibited works. 

Heath, Dudley. 

Miniatures (Connoisseur Series, 1905). With illus- 
trations in monotone and colour. Written from an 
artist's point of view. 

Hardie, Martin. 

Norgate's " Miniatura, or the Art of Limning." 

A reprint of Norgate's famous treatise, with an 
important introduction, dealing with its history and 
with the history of the similar treatise by HiUiard. 


Herberle, J. M. 

Catalogue of the Albert Jaffe Collection of Miniatures 
in Hamburg, i9<^)5. Illustrated. 
Kennedy, H. A. 

Early English Portrait Miniatures in the collection of 
the Duke of Buccleuch. Published by " The Studio," 

A valuable catalogue, richly illustrated with plates, 
in monotone and in colour, and containing the result 
of recent investigations. Important both for illus- 
trations and letter-press. 
Leisching, Edouard. 

Die Bildnis Miniatur Oesterrich. (Vienna, 1907.) 

The standard work dealing with Austrian minia- 
tures. Illustrated in the same sumptuous fashion as 
the following books by Lcmberger. Limited edition. 
Do. Miniaturen Ausstellung in Wien. (1905.) 

An important catalogue of an exhibition of minia- 
tures in Vienna, a handy work for reference. 
Lemberger, Ernst. 

Die Bildnis Miniatur in Deutschland, 1550-1850. 
(Munich, 1909.) 

The standard work on German miniatures. Richly 
illustrated, and with colour plates. Large 4to, 
limited edition. 
Do. Die Bildnis Miniatur in Skandinavien. (2 vols., 
Berlin, 1912.) 

A sumptuous work, of similar character to the one 
above, the standard w'ork on Scandinavian miniatures. 
Do. Meister Miniaturen aus Fiinf Jahrhunderten, 1911. 
Do. Portrait Miniatures of Five Centuries. 

The first-named book, which is in German, contains 
an important catalogue, arranged alphabetically, of 
miniature painters, with dates and v^erj' brief informa- 
tion. The English translation, published in London, 
omits this catalogue. Both works are richly iUus- 


trated, and have plates in colour. The editions were 

Lemaike, Lucien. 

Autissier, Miniaturiste, 1772-1830. (Lille, 1912.) 

The history of a French miniature painter, well 

Lambotte, Paul. 
La Miniatiire. 

An article from " L'Art Flamand," published 
separately (Brussels, 1912), deahn^ with the miniatures 
exhibited at the Exhibition of Miniatures in Brussels. 

Laban, Ferdinand. 

H. F. Fiiger, der Portr at miniaturist. (Berlin, 1905.) 
The standard treatise on the miniature painter 
Fiiger, well illustrated. 

LuGT, Frits. 

Le Portrait-Miniature, illustrc par la collection de sa 
Majeste La Reine des Pays Bas. (Amsterdam, 1917.) 
A treatise dealing with the miniatures in the posses- 
sion of the Queen of Holland, illustrated with colour 
plates, privately printed, and containing some in- 
teresting information respecting English and Dutch 

Lund, E. F. S. 

Miniatures Amlingen i de Danske Kongers Krono- 
logiske Samling paa Rosenborg Slot. (Copenhagen, 
1912.) 2 vols. 

A well illustrated catalogue, in two volumes, of the 
miniatures in the Rosenborg Palace, forming a 
standard work of reference on all Danish miniature 
painters and their works. 

Mauclair, Camille. 

Les Miniatures du XVIIIe Siecle, 1912, and Les 
Miniatures de I'Empire et dc la Restauration, 1913. 

Two 4to books dealing with French miniatures, 
well illustrated, and with plates in colour. Limited 


edition. Important both for illustrations and letter- 
press. 400 fcs. each. 
Mantz, Paul. 

Les Miniatiirists du XVIIIe Siecle. 
Article reprinted from " L' Artist," 1858. 
Mycieloki, Jerzy. 

Sto Lat Dziejow MalarStvva W. Polsge, 1760-1860. 
(Cracow, 1902.) 

The standard work of reference on PoUsh minia- 
Do. do. Alexsander Kucharski. (Cracow, 1898.) 

Memoir of a Polish miniature painter, whose worki 
have considerable historic value and charm. 
Do. A Hundred Years of Painting in Poland. 

A partial translation of the above book, issued 
MuNTON, Mrs. F. K. 

The catalogue of the Bohn Collection of Miniature*. 
(1884, privately printed.) 
MoLiNiER, Emile. 

Dictionnaire des Emailleurs. (Paris, 1885.) 

Small, convenient and reUable dictionary, dealing 
with painters in enamel. 


History of Miniature Art,'^ (1887, small folio.) 

Instructive work, one of the earliest dealing with the 
English miniature painters. 
Do. Catalogue of his collection of miniatures. Pri- 
vately printed, 1880. 
Redgrave, S. and R. 

Dictionary of Artists of the English School. (1878.) 
Do. ACenturyof Painters of the English School. (1890.) 
Robertson, Emily. 

Letters and Papers of Andrew Robertson. (1S95.) 

An important illustrated account of Robertson, 
with information concerning his palette and technique. 



Die BildnisMiniatur in Frankreich. (Leipsic, 191 1.) 

The standard German work on French miniatures, 
richly illustrated, privately printed. It must be used 
in conjunction with Bouchot. 
Smith, J. T. 

Nollekens and his Times, edited by Wilfred Whitten. 
(2 vols., illustrated, 1914.) 
Do. A Book for a Rainy Day, edited by Whitten. 


These two works contain a great deal of information 
concerning the artists of the eighteenth century. 
Stroehlin, Ernest. 

Jean Petitot et Jacques Bordier. (Geneva, 1905.) 
The standard work on these two enamel painters. 
South Kensington Museum. 

Portrait Miniatures and a series of photographs of 
them. (Anmdel Society, 1865.) 
Taigny, Edmond. 

J. B. Isabey, sa Vie et ses Qiuvres. (Paris, 1859.) 
For a more recent work on Isabey see under Callimaki. 
Usher, J. W. 

Catalogue of Collection of Objects of Art. (1900.) 
Privately printed, 50 copies only. Contains illus- 
trations of several fine miniatures. 
Do. An Art Collector's Treasures. (1916.) 
300 copies only, privately printed. 

Contains illustrations in coloiu: of several fine 
ViLLOT, Frederic. 

Hall, sa Vie, ses (Euvres et sa Correspondance. (Paris, 
The standard work on this eminent Swedish painter. 
Walpole, Horace. 

Anecdotes of Painters in England. (3 vols., 1862.) 
Indispensable work of reference. 


Wharton, A. H. 

Heirlooms in Miniatures. (Philadelphia, 1902.) 

Information concerning American miniature pain- 
ters of considerable value. 

Weaver, Lawrence. 

The First and Chief Grounds of Architecture, by John 
Shute, painter, 1563. 

A reprint of this work, issued in 1912, limited edition, 
contains some information on his miniatures. 

Whittock, N. 

The Miniature Painter's Manual, 1844. 

Coloured illustrations, and information on painting 

Wrangl, Baron N. 

An important series of articles dealing with the 
Russian Miniature Painters and their works which 
appeared in CiapLie Foau for 1909, well illustrated. 

Wellesley, F. 

Catalogue of his collection of miniatures and drawings, 
privately printed. 

The Catalogue of his Sale at Sotheby's, July, 1920, 
is a useful book of reference, and is well illustrated. 

Williamson, G. C. 

Catalogue of the Collection of the Miniatures, the 
Property of the late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. 4 vols. 
Imperial 4to, richly illustrated, privately printed. 
Do. History of Portrait Miniatures. 

2 vols. Imperial 4to, dealmg with European minia- 
tures, and with all the great collections, with about 
800 separate illustrations. (1904.) 
Do. Richard Coswa}', R.A., Miniature painter. 143 

illustrations (1897.) 
Do. Richard Cosway, R.A. 

Small 4to, with a hundred illustrations, based on the 
larger work issued in 1897. (1905.) 



Williamson, G. C. 

Do. Portrait Miniatures, a handbook for collectors, 
with 194 illustrations. (1897.) 

Do. George Engleheart, 1752-1829. Miniature Painter to 
George III. His Life and Works, with complete list 
of all his sitters. Richly illustrated. (1902). 

Do. Andrew and Nathaniel Plimer, Miniature Painters, 
their Lives and their Works. Illustrated with 200 
reproductions and eight photogravures. (1903.) 

Do. How to Identify Portrait Miniatures, with chapters 
on How to Paint Miniatures. 40 plates. (1904.) 

Do. John Downman, A.R.A., His Life and Works, with 
90 illustrations of his drawings and miniatures. (1907.) 

Do. Portrait Miniatures, English and Foreign. An 
Essay with 40 colour plates, and 16 plates of monotone 
illustrations. Issued by " The Studio," 1910. 

Do. Portraits en Miniature. (Paris, 1910.) 

The same book in French with certain additions. 

Do. Catalogue of a Collection of Miniatures, the pro- 
perty of H.R.H. Prince Ernest Augustus, Duke of 
Cumberland, with 74 gra\aire plates, privately printed. 

Do. Katalog einer Sammlung von Bildnisminiaturen 
im Besitze Seiner Koniglichen Hoheit des Herzogs von 

74 gravure plates, privately printed. (1914.) 
Do. L'Exposition de la l\Iiniature a Bruxellcs en 1912. 
Choix des oeuvres les plus reniarquables des minia- 
turists de toutes les ecoles du XVe au XIXe siecle. 
La miniature anglaise. 

89 illustrations and 14 colour plates. 
Do. Ozias Humphry, R.A., 1743-1808. Miniature 
painter and portrait painter. 

Richly illustrated, and with plates in colour. (1919.) 
Do. John Zoffany, R.A. 

Richly illustrated and with plates in colour. (1920.) 
Written in collaboration with Lady Victoria Manners. 


Williamson, G. C. 

Miniatures at Belvoir Castle. 

Written in collaboration with Lady Victoria Manners. 
(1904.) Privately printed. 
Do. Miniatures at Devonshire House. 

Written in collaboration with Cecil, fourth Earl of 
Liverpool. Privately printed. (1905.) 
Do. Miniatures at Castle Howard. 

Written in collaboration with Cecil, fourth Earl of 
Liverpool. Privately printed. (1905.) 
Do. Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers. 
5 vols., edited by Dr. WilHamson. (1903, 4, 5.) 
Do. Collection of ^Miniatures belonging to Lord Hoth- 
field, with biographies of the Artists. (1915.) 
Privately printed. 
Do. W'illiam Grimaldi, 1751-1830. Miniature 
Painter. Enamel painter to George I. His history, 
life and works, with many plates. In the Press. 
Do. Daniel Gardner, 1750-1805. Portrait Painter in 
Gouache and Pastel. Miniature Painter and Etcher. His 
history, life and works, with many plates. In the Press. 
Also various catalogues of exhibitions of miniatures 
and of the miniatures exhibited in various galleries, 
public and private. 

Collecting Old ]\Iiniatures. (1916.) 
Small, convenient handbook. 

Two very rare books, also bound together, may be 
mentioned. Both of them are of great interest to the 
student of miniature painting. At present one perfect 
copy only is known, and by the kindness of its owner, 
Mr. H. C. Levis, illustrations of the two title pages are 
given here. "An Introduction to the General Art of Draw- 
ing, with a treatise on Limning, etc., 1674 " ; and the actual 
treatise, "The Art of Limning, etc., by Mr. Gerhard of 
Brugge, translated from the Dutch by J. L., 1674." 




O c 

O i 


• c ^ - 

1 * 

■£ G 


5 iJ — c 

I ° ^ c 
5 a: « * 

:|e = 

2 1 f ^ I < 



c:> i£ 


a =5 



-^ ^'^ §65 



|i f^ P 

ti *■« $2 

^^ if »^ 

1^. Sg" 1 










Q J> ^ o 

o -^ 

= tjjc SIX 

c$ e 

e B .1 8 " 



1 . 


Dealing with Pigments. 

Church, Sir A. H. 

llie Chemistry of Paints and Painting. (i9<"'i.) 

A wonderful book, full of information and written by 

the man who was in his day the very highest authority 

on the subject. Sir Arthur Church was Professor 

of Chemistry to the Royal Academy. He died in 1915. 

Laurie, Dr. A. P. 

The Pigments and Mediums of the Old Masters. (1914.) 

Dr. Laurie succeeded Sir Arthur Church in his 

position, and in this book has given a vast amount 

of authoritative material and set forth the results 

of his life-long study of the subject. 

The student cannot afford to be without both these 


Madderton's Notes for Artists are also to be commended. 
In No. 18 is an important article on varnishes used by the 
old masters, by Dr. Laurie, and in Nos. 13 and 14 are two 
articles by the author, on cracking and vehicles. Mad- 
derton's catalogues of colours often contain notes of some 
value bearing on the use and permanence of pigments. 


WOOD (1768-1809) 

Extracted from his ledgers and never before published. 

N.B. Full details of any miniatures will be gladly given upon 
application by the author of this book. Of those marked T. there 
are tracings preserved in the ledgers, most valuable for identification. 

Ambrey, Mrs. (Edgware 

Road), II 
Alexander, Mr. (Haymarket), 

29 ; Mrs., 39, 146 
Atkinson, Mrs. (Great Russell 

Street), 41 
Allen, Mr. Jas. (Bristol), 84; 

Mrs., loi 
Acraman, Mr. (Bristol), 85 

Miss Sarah Ann, 788 

Miss, 793 ; Thos., 793 

Mrs. John, 6155 
Abercorn, son of Duke of, as 

Cherub iii 
Allen, Mr., 188 
Absalom, Mr. (St. Swithin's 

Lane), 245 
Adamson, Miss, 264 
Atcheson, Mr. (Inner Tem- 
ple), 322 
Allen, General John (Vord- 

mont, N. America), 403 
Ashe, Dr. Hoadley (Eling, 

near Southampton), 462, 

Andr6, Mr., 495 

T. Abernethie, Miss Margaret 

(Banflf), 535, 561 (now Mrs. 

Abernethie, Mr. John (Loth- 

bury), 542 
Acraman, Mr. Daniel (Bris- 
tol), 550 ; Mrs., 789 
T. Abington, Mr. William (East 

India House), 567 
T. Akers, Miss Isabella (St. 

Kitts), 638, 6036 
Akers, Mrs. Jane (Howland 

Street), 639 
Arnold, Mr. Edwd. (son to 

General Arnold, of Glo'ster 

Place, Marylebone), 7O4 
Arnold, Mrs. (wife to General 

A. American), 732 
Allt, Mr. (late of Antigua), 

T. Arbuthnot, Mr. (Edinburgh), 

786 ; Mr. Geo., 828 ; Mr. 

Robert, 839 
T. Aylmer, Lord, 860 

Apreece, Miss (daughter of 

Sir Thos. A.), 864 




Apreece, Lady (wife of Sir T.), 

Ashe, Miss Laura Hoadley 
(daughter of Dr. Ashe), 910 

Abington, Miss Sophia 
(Wood's niece), 917 

Atkinson, Mr. (Calcutta), 

Armstrong, Mrs. (Bahama 
Islands), 61 19 

Aldebert, Mr. (Stamford Hill), 
6120, 6146 
T. Adams, Mr. Fredk. (E. L Co. 
Naval Service), 6134 

Ainslie, Capt. (E. I. Co. 9th 
Native Infantry), 6175 

Adams, Miss (Swansea), 6184 

Acraman, Mr. (copy of Carlo 
Dolci picture), 6201 

Allan, Mr. and Mrs. (Edin- 
burgh), D 099 

Abel, Head of, after Gains- 
borough, D 039 

Barksdale, Miss Ann, 17 
Barksdale, Miss Jemima, 18 
Burrell, Mr. (Brighton), 61 
Bourchier, Mr. (Queen St., 

Mayfair), 71 
Bower, Ensign, 14th Foot, 

Braide, Mr. (Bristol), 89 
Budson, Mr. (Bristol), 95 
Brodie, Mrs. (Golden Square), 

131, 166 
Bracken, Mrs. (Ipswich), 145 
Birch, Mr., Junr. (Fulham), 

178, 248 
Brail, Miss (Queen Anne 

Street, E.), 194 
Burns, Mrs., Senr. (Queen 

Street, Mayfair), 179 
Burns, Mr. W. Stukely (Po- 
land Street), 201 
Burns, Capt., 202 
Burns, Mrs. Stukely (Eton 

Street, Pimlico), 236 
Bardslej^ Mrs. (Manchester), 


Benjoin, Mr. Geo. (Jesus 

Coll., Cam.), 261 
Bowden, Mr. (Milk Street), 

Basilico, Mr. (Fludyer Street), 

287 ; Mrs., 312 
Beauvais, Mr. (Chiswick), 306 
Bramley, Mr. I. C. (Alders- 
gate Street), 310 
Benion, Mr. (Wrexham), 336 
Bateman, Miss (Chiswick), 

Burton, Miss (Chester Place), 

Byng, Mrs. (New Road), 353 
Barnard, Miss, 378 (now Mrs. 

Hicks, 396) 
Branton, Mr. (Aldersgate 

Street), 388 
Browne, Mrs. Hawkins 

(Bridgenorth), 400 
Bruce, Mr. (Sloane Street). 


Bellamy, Mrs. (Clapham), 444 

Berckemeyer, Mrs. (Ham- 
burg), 447; Mr., 456 

Bradshaw, Mrs., 449 (see 

Bell, Miss (Lincolnshire), 454 

Bingham, Capt. Robert (see 

Belcher, Mr., 483 

Bingham, Capt. Joseph 
(R.X.), 488 

Bruce, Capt. Hy. (Dragoons), 


T.Barrett, Mr. C. R. (nth 
Light Dragoons), 508 
Bux,Shaick Emaum (A Ben- 
gal Consumah), 511 

T. Beak, Mr. (Gerrard Street), 

Bullock, Mr. (nth Light 

Dragoons), 533 ; Mrs., 534 
Beckwith, Col. Ferdinand, 

Burton, Mrs. (Percy Street), 

Bourchier, Mr. (Harley Street, 

late Bombay), 613 



T. Beresford, Capt. (2nd Life- 
guards), 641 
Beauvais, Mrs. (Chas. Street, 
Berkeley Square), 644 ; two 
sons, Lewis and Alexander, 

Bent, Miss (Plymouth), 652 

(see Farmer) 
T. Bourke, Mr. Robert (ist 

Foot-guards), 687 
T. Billinghurst, Mr. Geo. (7th 

Dragoons), 697, 708 
T. Bruce, Capt. (39th Foot, 

Sloane Street), 700 
Bellasyse, Mrs., 703 
Burton, Major-Gen. (3rd 

Guards, Brook Street), 705 
T. Bramley, Mr. Collingworth 

(Aldersgate Street), 706 
T. Bateman, Mr. (Bunhill Row), 

T. Barnard, Mr. ' Lockart 
(Philpot Lane), 728 

Brichzeke, Mrs. (Beckenliam. 
Kent), 738, 777 

Byles, Mr. (Halifax), 754, 
T Bannister, Mr., Junior 

(Great Russell Street), 759 

Baker, Miss Elizabeth (Can- 
terbury), 760 

Burnett, Mr. (Scotland), 766, 

Bussell, Revd. Mr. (Fen- 
church Street), 769 
T. Beachcroft, Mrs. (Grafton 
Street, Bond Street), 806 ; 
daughter Kitty, 986 ; Col. 
Matthew, son, 995 ; Mrs., 

Bartlett, Miss (Bristol), 808 
T. Bourke, Mrs. Richard (Som- 
erset Street), 814, 941 ; 
Mr., 937 

Boyle, Lord (son of Earl of 
Shannon), 826, 979 ; Lady 
B., 971 

Baker, Mr. Edwd. (Wilts), 
T. Blunt, Mr. (Old Pay Office, 
Broad Street), 892. 

Brunton, Miss Louisa (Nor- 
wich), 911, 920 
Bristow, Mrs. (late of Madras), 

Blount, Mrs. Ed. (n6e 

Wright, q.v.), 957 
Browne, Col. (12th Light 

Dragoons), 962 
Brooke, Mrs. Louisa (Nacton, 
near Ipswich, Suffolk), 998. 
wife of Capt. B., R.N., 
daughter of Lady Middle- 
T. Bush, Mr. (Bristol), 6013 
T. Butler, Hon. Capt. Chas, 
(brother to Earl of Ormond, 
14th Light Draguons), 
T. Bruce, Dr. (New York), 6025 
Bell, Miss (Manager of Drury 

Lane Theatre) , 603 1 
BrowTie, Mrs. (living with 

Major Thornton), 6064 
Birch, the late Mr. (Thorpe, 

Norfolk), 6069 
Bulkely, Miss Charlotte (Lis- 
bon), 6087 
Burrard, Mrs. (Lymington, 
Hants), 6091 
T. Button, Mr. Philip (Stiflford, 
near Grays, Essex), 6104 
Beachcroft, Miss F. (Mrs. 
Dunlop, of Stockwell), 61 11 
T. Birch, Capt. (E. L, Ship 

Britannia), 61 17 
T. Burnaby, Colonel (ist Foot, 
guards, Lowesby Hall, near 
Leicester), 61 18 
Billinghurst, Miss. 6122 
Baker, Mrs. (Devonshire 
Street), 6125 
T. Blair, Mr.. (Glo'ster Place 
Portman Square), 6129 ; 
wife, 6130 
Birch, Miss (Jamaica Place, 

Limehouse), (>i3i 
Brook, Revd. Mr. Thos. 
(Hambrook, Bristol), 6140 
Brooke, Miss Fanny (Sodbury, 
Bristol), 6 1 41 



Brook, Mr. Hy. (Hensham or 

Hcnbury, Bristol), 6143 ; 

wife, 6153 
Bishop, Mr. John, 6144 
Bamfylde, Mr. Geo. W. (son 

of Sir Chas. B.), C171 
Bloss, Lady (wife of Sir 

Robert Bloss, Gabalva, 

Glamorgan), 6176 
Birch, Mrs. J. (Gower Street) 

and Child, 6195 
Boughe, Mrs., 6208 
Bartlett, Mr. Thos. (Temple), 

D. 09 
Brooksbank, Mr. Henry 

(Chesterfield Street), D. 

032 (see D. 034) 
Bristow, Mrs. Robert (Great 

Queen Street), D. 045 
Brooke, Miss (Cork Street), 

D. 102 

Cox, Miss (Brook Street), 13 
Child, Mr., 19 
Clergyman, 25 

Cornthwaite, Mrs. (Bank), 30 
Campbell, Mrs. (Surrey 

Street), 44 
Clidsdale, Dr. Jas. (Edin.), 55 
Campbell (Argyle Street, 

nephew to the Duke), 59 
Callcott, J. W., Esq., M.B. 

(Kensington Gravel Pits), 

Coldwell, Miss, 83 
Coulstring, Mr. (Bristol), 91, 

Colman, Miss (Tottenham), 

Coxwell, Mr. (Temple Bar), 

Capper, Mr. (Oxford), 117 
Clifton, Mrs. (Cross Street, 

Hatton Garden), 143 
Chase, Miss (Kensington), 148 
Cood, Mr. (Mawbey Place, 

South Lambeth), 161 
Cox, Mrs. (Lower Grosvenor 

Place), 183 

Chase, Mrs. (Kensington), 
184, 190 

Cracroft, Mr. Charles (Aber- 
gavenny), 210 

Cox, Mr. (New Court, Crut- 
ched Friars), 223 

Cockburn, Miss (Great Or- 
mond Street), 259 

Calcroft, Mr. (Great Marlbro' 
Street), 273 

Comberbach, Mr. (Craven 
Street), 285 

Clifford of Chudleigh, Lady, 


Calverley, Mr. (of Chester), 

Cadell, Mr. (Edin.), 317. 

Cambridge, Revd. George 
(Twickenham), 333 ; Mrs., 
T. Coulthurst, Revd. Dr. (Hali- 
fax), 344 

Carr, Mr. (Surgeon E. India- 
man), 393 

Codrington, Miss, 435 

Clarke, Capt. (E. I. Army), 

Carew, Mr. (Ireland), 442 

Clarke, Mr. Robert, 473 

Chaffin, Mr., 474 
T. Cotgrave, Miss Fanny, 523 ; 
her son. Master Hewitt, 963 
T. Cooper, Mr. (Ely Place), 529 

Campbell, Mrs., (wife of 
Archibald C, of Whitton 
Dean), 547 

Chaplin, 5lr., 552 

Cynthia (see 565 and 6181) 

Campbell, Mr., 604 

Coles, Mrs. (Camberwell), 609 

Cesser, Mr. (Millbank, West- 
minster), 617 

Gumming Ad. (Greenwich), 

Coppinger, Mr. (Cork Street), 
T. Campbell, Mr. Chas. (Alder- 
manburj- Postern), 633 

Clarke, Revd. S. (Hanover 
Square and Hants), 657 



T. Cleaveland, Master Sam 
(Warborne House, Hants), 
663; Mr. R. F., 710; 
Master Thomas, 823 
Caittar, Mr. (Bread Street), 
680 .., 
T. Cuppage, Master Bruce 

(Sloane Street), 686 
T. Cochran, Mr. (Halifax), 692 
Gary, Mr. John (Lincoln's 

Inn), 694 
Circassian, The (Mrs. Camp- 
bell), 711 
T. Collins, Mr. (ist Life-guards), 

718 : 
T. Crewe, Lieut. -Col. (Crewe 

Hall, Norfolk), 723 
T. Chinese Man, 727 
T. Crofton, Master Morgan 
(Middy, R.N.), 740 
Cockburn, Mr. (Strand), 744 ; 

Mrs., 748 
Crofton, Sir Hugh (Ireland), 

T. Cunyngham, Col. David 
(6oth Foot, Park Street, 
Grosvenor Square), 752, 

T. Clay. Mr. Joseph (Old Broad 

Street), 787 
Cazalet, Mr. (late of Peters- 
burgh), 797 
Cooke, Mrs. (alias Bradshaw, 

see 449, Baker Street), 812, 

848, 857, 871, 959, 960, 

Cooke, Revd. Richard (Duke 

Street, Portland Place), 

829, 2nd wife of D. 144 
Casstcl, Miss Ann (Bruton 

Street), 843 
T. Collins, Mr. (ist Life-guards), 

Chalmers, Sir Geo. (see Bart- 

Camp, Mrs. (New Bond 

Street), 869 
Capel, Hon. and Revd. 

William (Watford, Herts). 


Cockerell, Miss Ann (Saville 

Row), 868 
Crompton, Mr. Jas., 885 

(Tooks Court) 
Clarke, Miss Sarah (Grand- 
daughter Mr. Sydenham, 

Bond Street), 888 
Clay, (Broad Street, 

City), 896 
T. Crozier, Mr. (Bombay Artill.), 

Cooke, Miss Barbara (Duke 

Street, Portland Place), 

Cochran, Sen., Mr. (late of 

Halifax), 926 
Castle, Miss Catharine Louisa 

(Bruton Street), 928 
Cresswell, Mrs. Letitia, (Duke 

Street, Manchester 

Square), 944 ; adopted son. 

Cambridge, Rev. Geo. Owen 

(Twickenham), 982 
Cumberland, Mrs. (wife of 

Capt. C. (R.N.) ), 6002 
Caulfield, Mrs., 6012 
Clay, Mr. (Burton-on-Trent), 

T. Cleaveland, Mr. Rich. Francis 
(Royal Mounted Artillery), 
Chester. Bishop of, 6095 

(see McDermot) 
Colson, Mrs. (Streatham Com- 
mon), 6099 
T. Cunningham. Mr. (Bedford 
Square), 6123 
Coorga, The Rajah of, 
T. Crawfurd, Capt. (late of Cal- 
cutta, I2th Foot). 6138 
Cuppage. Mrs. (daughter of 
Col. Bruce), 6157 
T. Currie. Major (54th Foot), 
Colmans, the two Miss (St. 

Pancras), D. 022 
Clarke, Mrs. (Swakeley), D. 



Clarke, Dr. (New Burlington 
Street), D. 071, D. 087, 
D. 096 
T. Cockburne, Revd. Dr. (son-in- 
law to Sir Robert Peele), 
D. 077, D. 078 

Cockburne, Mrs., D. 079, 
D. 082 

Clarke, Mrs. M. A. (Duke of 
York's Mistress), D. 088 

Cockerell, Mr. Robert (West- 
bourne House, Paddington) 
D. 093 

Cart%vright, Capt. Edmund, 
D. 095 

Chippendale, Mrs., D. 097 

Carne, Mrs., D. 103 

Dresdale, Mrs. (Edin.), 32 
Daniel, Mr. (Foster Lane), 35 
Dodd, Mrs. (Lime Street), 67 
Dorival, Miss (Queen Ann 

Street, E.), 156 
Dubois, Mrs. (Ealing), 185 
Delaval, Mr. J. B. (St. 

Paul's Churchyard), 189 
Dew, Mr. (Bristol), 211 
Dalton, Mrs. (Devonshire 

Street), 279 
Dalton, Mr., 281 
Donaldson, Mr., 300 
Dunbar, Mr. (ist Foot), 324 
Dressing, Mrs. (Pimlico), 328 
Davis, Mr. (New Road, Jew- 
eller), 330 
D'Arc}', Mr. (Chester), 355 
Dyer, Mr. Jun. (Apothecary, 

Bristol), 362 
Douglass, Mr., Jr. (Bedford 
Street, Bedford Square), 

373. 423 
Davis, Major (93rd), 390 
Davis, Mr. Wm., Jnr. (Rupert 

Street, Goodman's Fields), 

450 ; Mrs., 472 
Davie, Sir John, Bart., 484 
Douglas, Sir Chas. (Bart, of 

Kelhead), 516 
Dunbar, Miss Louisa (Banff), 


Darby, Mrs. (Lime Street) 

Dasliwood, Master Ed. (son 

to Mr. D. of Calcutta). 608 
Dashwood, Miss Charlotte 

(Wooton), 610 
Dashwood, Amelia, Louisa 

and Thomas (Wooton), 611 
T. Dongan, John, Esq. (Welbeck 

Street), 634, 883 ; Mrs., 

635. 659, 667, 775 ; Dr. 

(brother), 991 
Devis, Mrs. (Devonshire 

Place), 643 
Douglas, Mrs. (Charlotte 

Street), Fitzroy Square, 


Deare, Mrs., 674, 691 

Dixon, Capt. (Royal Artil- 
lery), 695 
T. Dowling, Mr. (Bristol), 717 

Darell, Miss (see Nightin- 

Durham, Mr. W. H. (Ber- 
mudas), 796 

Davis, Col. (25th Light Dra- 
goons), 824, 830 

Dudgeon, Mr., 835 

Dalton, Mr. (near Preston, 
Lanes), 853 
T. Dufrayer, Mr. (Dominica), 

T. Duncan, Mr. (Edin.), 006, 

son, 972 
T. Dyke, Lieut. -Col. (Coldstream 

Guards), 936, 976 

T. Drake, Revd. Mr. (Amers- 

bury), 977 

Dick, Mrs. John (Montagu 

Street, Russell Square), 997 

Dalling, Miss Ann (daughter 

of Lady D.), 6016 
Da\'ies, Mrs. (sen.) (Leyton- 

stone), 6078 
Drummond, Mrs. (wife of 
Revd. Dr. Hay D., of Had- 
leigh) and two children, 
6080, Square 
T. Dunlop, Mr. (Temple), 6100 ; 
Mrs., 61 1 1 



T. Dursley, Lord (eldest son of 

Earl I3erkeley), 61 14 
Drake, Revd. Mr. (Amer- 

sham), 6166 
Drake. Mr. Thos. (M.P., 

Amersham), 6177 
Douglass, Mr. Andrew (son of 

Sir A. S. D.), 6179 
Drinkwater, Mr. John (IrwcU 

House, Manchester), 6186 
Davis, Miss Helen (Devon- 
shire Place), 6200 
Dowdall, Capt. (31st Foot), 

T. Drake, Mr. Chas. (Amsterdam, 

brother to M.P.), 62 11 
Dupuis, Miss Elizabeth (Pim- 

lico), D. 019 
Dormer, Mrs. (niece to Col. 

Kirkpatrick) , D. 044 
Doherty, Mrs. (daughter of 

Mrs. Holmes), D. 047 

Evason, Mrs. (Streatham), 37 
Elmes, Miss (Titchfield 

Street), 155 
Eden, Miss (Newcastle), 167 
Edwards, Mr. J. P. (Bristol), 

Evans, Mrs. (Duke Street, 

Manchester Square), 198 
Eye, An, 227 (see 314) 
Elphinston, Mr. J no. (Edin.), 

288, 289 
Edwards, Mr. Nathaniel 

(Derby), 342 
Edridge, Mrs. (Marlboro' 

House, Vauxhall), 385 
Evans, Mrs. (Hillingdon), 389 

(see above) 
Ellison, Mrs., 391 
Elliott, Mr. (Royal Artillery). 


Evans, Mrs. (Grafton Street, 
Fitzroy Square), 732 

Eames, Mrs. John (Pater- 
noster Row), 879 

Elken, Mrs. (Paddington), 

Egerton, Capt., 6105 

Everest, Mr. Geo. (Crick- 
howell, Brecon), 6132 

Evans, Miss Mary (Clapham), 

Eastwick (niece to Mrs. 
Kent), D. 114 

Fancy, as Mrs. Robinson, 6, 

74, 78, 82, 565 
Foster, Mr. (Oxford Street), 

Eraser, Mr. (Bombay), 132 ; 

(Mr. Stuart), 139 
French Emigrant, 141 
Ford, Mr. (Windsor), 147 
Elude, Miss (Blackheath), 275 
Ferrers, Miss (Conduit Street) , 

Fountain, Mrs. (Rochester), 

Farnham, Edward, Esq., 347, 

Foskett, Mr. (Gray's Inn), 

T. French, Capt. (Coldstream 
Guards), 381 
Fownes, Mr. (Asia E. India- 
man), 398 
T. Flint, Aliss (Feversham), 418 
T. Flint, Major (E. I. Army), 


Feilding, Mrs. (daughter of 
Lady Charlotte Finch), 433 

Forth, Mr. (8th King's Dra- 
goons), 460 
T. Falconet, Mr. (Clapham), 494 

Farquhar, Mrs. (Doctor's Com- 
mons), 498 ; Mr., 500 

Fenwick, Mrs., 538 

Fendall, Miss Harriet (Great 
Portland Street), 576 

Fitzgerald, Lord Edward 
(brother to D. of Leinster), 

T. Fownes, Mr. J.J. (Temple), 
Fletcher, Mr. (son of Sir H. 
F., of Cumberland), 756; 
Mrs., 844 



Fordyce, Mr. (E. I. Co. 

Artillery), 772 
Farmer, Capt., 798 (see Bent) 
Fletcher, Mr. J as. (late E. I. 

Co.), 855, 938 
Forrester, Master Geo. (sou 

of Mr. and Lady Catharine 

Manners F.), 929 
T. Fletcher, Mr. (Gloucester 

Place), 964 ; Mrs., 965 
T. Fryer, Mr. (Nottingham 

Place), 6021 
Fletcher, Mr. (Etherington), 

Finch, Mrs. (Shrewsbury), 

Folkestone, Lord (see 6182), 

6188, 6190 
Fitter, Mr. (Tavistock Street, 

Bedford Square), 6192 
Fletcher, Mr. Thos. (Liver- 
pool), 6202 
Franklin, Mrs. (%vife of Capt. 

F., E. I. Co., Navy), 6209 
T. Fordyce, Mr. Chas. (Cleve- 
land Row), D. 010 ; Mrs., 

D. 012 
Fordyce, Mr. (Surveyor, 

Crown Lands), D. 016 

Goldsmid, Louis (Stamford 

Hill), 24, aged 20 months 
Green, Mr. (Halifax, Yorks), 


Glover, Miss, 116 

Griffiths, Lieut. (Coombe 
House, Teddington), 159 

Gillan, Dr. (China Embassy), 

Goss, Mr., 180 

Gilpin, Master Wm. (Padding- 
ton), 207 

Guy, Mrs. (Walcott Place), 

Guy, Mr. (Chief Mate, North- 
umberland E. I.), 230 

Greer, Mr. (Ireland), 304 

Glennie, Capt. (Artillery Co. 
and Mincing Lane), 360 

Gowland, Mrs. (Warren 

Street, Fitzroy Square), 

Graham, Col. (Verdmont, 

N. America), 399 
Gardner, Miss, 461 
Gibbs, Mrs. (see Knipe) 
Gordon, Mrs. Adam, 513 
Gibson, Revd. Mr., 536 
Grant, Mr. (see Abernethie) 
Gibbons, Mr. H. O. (Carey 

Street), 570 
T. Gibbons, Revd. Mr. (his 

brother), 571 
Garrow, Mr.\Vm.(Totteridge), 


Greenley, Miss (Merth}T, 
Glam.), 590, 672 

Garrett, Miss Rebecca (Stoke 
Newington or Colchester), 

Gilman, Miss Joanne (Isling- 
ton), 671 

Gillebaude, Revd. Mr. (Spital 
Square), 696 
T. Grant, Mr., 726 

Gayer, Capt. (67th Foot), 745 

Gorman, Miss Maria (New 
Broad Street), 751 

GriflEenhoofe, Mr. (Eton), 765 

Groves, Mrs., 776 
T. Gale, Mr. Thos. (Middy- 
Lower Brook Street), 825, 

Greenley, Miss Eliza (Titley, 
near Kingston, Radnor), 

Garrow, Miss Eliza (daughter 

of the Counsellor), 903 
Gosler, Mrs. (Upper Norton 

Street), 952 
Graham, Miss (Chelsea Coll.), 

Godfrey, Capt. (Mounted 

Royal Artillery), 6034 
Goodrich. Miss Mar}-, 6056 
T. Grant, Mr. Geo. (Berks) 6063 
Gilman, Miss (Ward of Mrs. 

Scott), 6081 
Gilman, Miss Emily, 6082 



Gloucester, H.R.H. The Duke 

of, 6189, 6203 
Gosling, Mrs. (Somerset 

Place), D. 084, D. loi 

Hodgitts, Mr. T. W. (Dud- 
ley), 10 

Harward, Mr. (Northend), 

Handasyde, Lieut. -Captain 
(Chatham Barracks), 46 

Hemming, Mr., 135 

Hopkinson, Benj. (W. Ind.), 

Harmar, Mrs. (Hertford 

Street), 187 
T. Harmar, Mr. Rich., 205 
Hobhouse, Mr. Benj. (near 

Bath), 225 
Harcourt, Genl. (Portland 

Place), 240 
Hardwick, Mr. (Oxford), 263 
Hervey, Mr. Will (.\merica), 

Hotchkiss, Mr. Rich. (Edin.), 

Hornsby, Mrs. L. (Cornhill), 

Hoskins, Mrs. (Lime Street), 


Holman, jun., Mr. (Leyton- 
stone), 364, 365 

Harris, Mrs. (St. Paul's 
Churchyard), 369 * 

Hereford, The Bishop of, 375 

Hicks, Mr. (Bedfordshire), 
387 ; Mrs. (see Miss Bar- 

Huxham, Mr. (? Coll., Oxon), 

Hilton, Mr. (Lanes.), 412 ; 
Mrs., 675 

Holgate, Mr. (Lincoln), 467 

Herbert, Mr. Geo. (ist Life- 
guards), 460 

Hill, Capt., 471 
T. Hughes, Miss (Bath), 496 

Headley, Mr. (Newcastle), 

Hyde, Mrs. (Bengal), daugh- 
ter of Ly. Francis Sey- 
mour, 514 

Hyde, Miss (Maria, daughter 
of above), 515 

Henderson, Mr, Francis 
(Ealing), 519; Mrs., 520, 

Hagh, Mr. Joseph (Halifax), 

Home, Mr. (Bishopsgate 

Street), 557 
Haddeley, .Mr.. 566 
Holman, Mr. (Covent Garden 

Theatre), 588 
Hingeston, Mr. (Cheapside), 

Holmes, Miss Maria (West- 
coombe Park, Greenwich), 
Hob.son, Mr. (East Indiaman, 

Armiston), 627 
Hay, Miss, 636 
Hawkins, Miss Mary (Nass, 
near Canterbury), 676, 833 ; 
Miss Eleanor, 841 
T. Hopkins, Mr. (Greek Street, 
Soho), 678, 684 ; Mrs., 677. 
729 ; Mr., 693 
Harvey, Mrs., 689 
Hodson, Sir Robert, 690 
T. Hill, Mr. (Edin.), 720 
T. Hooker, Revd. Mr. (Rotting- 

dean), 731 
T. Huckell, Mr. (Ely Place), 822 
Henry, Miss. 669 
Hadden, Mr. Jas. (.\berdeen), 

850; Mrs., 851 
Holland, Capt., R.N.. 865 
T. Hope, Mrs. \Vm. (late of 
Amsterdam), 889, 890, 934, 
T. Higginson, Mr., 912 
T. Hobart, Hon. Geo., 925, 933 ; 
Hon. Mrs., 927 (daughter of 
Col. McLean) 
T. Hole, Mr. VV. (Surgeon, Isling- 
ton), 947 
T. Huggan, Mrs. (Scotland). 955 
Hals, Mrs., 6001 



Hammond, Miss (daughter of 

Sir Andrew S. H.), 6006 
T. Hummcll, Mr., Jr. (Musician), 

Hood, Capt. (3rd Foot. 

guards, grandson to Lord 

Hood), 6044 
Hammond, Capt., R.N. (son 

of Sir A. H.), 6055, 6149 
T. Holmes, Revd. Mr. (Sub-Dean 

Chapel Royal, St. James'), 

Headford, Marquis of, 6062 
Hartwell, Mr. (Holden, son 

of Sir F. H., Somerset 

Place, Strand), 6075, D. 116 
T. Hookham, Mr. Thos. Jordan 

(Bond Street), 6083, 6106 
T. Hart, Mr. Geo. (King's Road, 

Fulham), 6097 
Higqinson, Miss Martha and 

Miss Louisa (Harley Street), 

Hamilton, Mr. (71, Mark 

Lane), 6158 
Hare, Mr. (Bristol), 6194 
Harding, Mr. (Tamworth) , 

Holmes, Mrs. (Buly, Wor- 
cestershire), D. 026 
Hannell, Miss Mary (Pad- 

dington), D. 041, D. 042 
Hartwell, Lady {wiie of Sir 

F. H.), D. 083 
Hook, Mr. William (Red- 

cliffe Parade, Bristol), 6154 

Innes, Col. (E. I. Co., Madras 
Establishment), 6145 

Jourdan, Maria (aged 2), 33 
Jackson, Mr. (ChanceryLane), 

58, 70 
Jones, Mr. (Bristol), 86, 90 ; 

Mrs., 174 
Jordan, Mr., 181 
Johnston, Mrs. (Queen Anne 

Street), 193, 195 
Johnston, Major (E. I. Co. 

Corps of Engineers), 196 

Jones, Mr. (Place House, 
Swansea), 200, 203, 215 (as 
Calvert Jones, 6084, T.) 

Jones, Miss (Gloucestershire) 

Jones, Mr. Hy. (New Inn), 

Jones, Mr. (Marshal of the 

King's Bench), 351, 432 ; 

Mrs. and Mr., 413. 
Jones, Mrs., 470 
J elf, Mr. J. (Banker, Glou- 
cester), 612 
Jeflfries, Mrs. (Basinghall 

Street), 656 
Jerningham, Mr. Geo. (son of 

Sir Wm.), 682, 832, after 

Johnston, Mrs. (Chas. Street, 

Grosvenor Square), 713 
T, Jamison, Mr. (East India- 
man, Armiston), 716 
Jordon, Mrs. (Barbadoes), 

737; Mr., 742 
Jenks, Miss (Welbeck Street), 

T. Jackson, Mr. Robert (Earl 

Street, Blackf riars) , 900; 

Mrs., 939 
T. Jackson, Mr. Wm. Ward 

(Normanby, Yorks), 6003 
Jones, Mrs. (wife of Capt.) 

(i8th Light Dragoons), 

Johnston, Miss, 6052 
J ebb, Mr. (nephew to late Sir 

Rich. J ebb), Scots Greys, 

Jarman, Mr. Thos. (Bristol), 

Jordan, Misses (Harley 

Street), D. 092 
Kalv, Mr. Wm. (Edgware 

Road), 8 
Kerby, Mrs. (Stafford Street), 

Keeble, Miss Jane (ward of 

John Petrie), 64 
Kirton, Mrs. (near Bristol), 




Kelly, Mr. (Doorkeeper, 
House of Commons), 120 
King, Miss (Portman Street), 
256, 410 (as Mrs. Kent), 
D. 037 
Knipe, Mr. Robert, 414 
Knight, Revd. Mr. (Rector of 
Tewkesbury Abbey), 417 
T. Kingscote, Mrs. (near Leather- 
head), 421 
Knipe, Miss (Limpslield), 436, 
512 (afterwards Mrs. Gibbs) 
Keppel, Col., 437 
Keppel, Miss Charlotte 
Augusta (Pall Mall), 505 ; 
Miss, 605 
Kershaw, Mr. (Halifax), 532 
Kelly, Capt. (24th Foot), 

Kensington, Mr. Henry (Lom- 
bard Street), 593 
Knox, Miss Letitia (Soho 

Square), 618, 628 
Keighly, Mr. (Hertford Street, 

Mayfair), 730; Mrs., 770 
Kirkpatrick, Major Jas. 

Achill (E. I. Co. Army), 

846, 854 
T. Kelly, Master Thos., 870 

Kemble, John, 954 
T. Kennedy, Hon. Robert, 6043 
Kirkpatrick, Miss Barbara 

(Holydale House, Kent), 

6061, 6088 
Kay, Mr. Joseph (Architect), 

Kellott, the late Mrs. (Cork), 

T. Kirkpatrick, Miss Clementina 

and Miss Barbara, D. 030 
Kirkpatrick, Miss Eliza and 

Miss Julia, D. 031 
Kent, Mrs., D. 037 
King, Miss Emily (sister to 

above), 1). 038 
Kirkwall, Viscount, D. 113 
Kirkwall, his two sons, D. 146 

Lucina, Mrs. (Newman Street), 
104 ; Mr., 107 

Lagemann, Mr. William 

(Bri.stol), 123 
Locket, Mr. (Surrey Street), 

Legge, Miss, 133 
Luard, Mr. (Earl Talbot, 

East Indiaman), 144, 
Luard, Captain (Georgiana 

East India Packet), 374 
Lockart, Mr. Geo. (Surrey 

Street), 164 
Leon, Mrs., 182 
Le Rich, Mr., 191 
Lindsele, Mrs. (Wimpole 

Street), 208 
Ljmn, Mr., 232 
Lovidge, Mr., 265 
Lambton, Mr. (Durham), 334 
Lambton, Master (Berkeley 

Square), 322 
Long, Mrs. (Teddington), 337 
Lovedcn, Capt. (Berks Mili- 
tia), 366 ; Mrs., 370 (as 

Mead), 878 
Lowndes, Mr. (Hampstead), 

382, 459 
T. Lorimcr, Miss Margaret 

(Strand), 401 
Lambton, Miss Fanny (Charl- 
ton, near Greenwich), 429 
Legh, Mr. Wm., 485 
Laurence, Col. (American 

Light Infantry), 501 (done 

from Turnbull's picture) 
Lillington (sec Spooner) 
Levington, Mr. Robert (N. 

Y.), 510 
Lisle, Miss (niece to Lord 

Cholmondeley), 555 
Lodge, Miss Jane, 569 
Lome, Marquis of (his eye), 

Lemon, Mr. Wm. (son to 

Sir W. L.). 606. Shot 

himself next March 
Laurens, late Governor, 665 
Leighton, Mr. (Brompton), 

739 : Mrs., 773 
Livien, Mr. (Fenchurch 

Street), 749 



Levis, Mrs. (Jamaica) (or 

Lcvian), 761 
Leake, Mr. (Guildford Street), 

Little, Col. (E. L Co., Army), 

T. Lucas, Mr. (Dominica), 872 
Langham, Miss Charlotte 

(Roehampton), daughter of 

Lady L., 882 
T. Littledale.Mr. Joseph (Harley 

Street), a writer to Bengal, 

T. Lettsom, Mr. Sam (son of Dr. 
L.), 902 

Lushington,Miss Mary (daugh- 
ter of Sir S. L.). 916, 931 

Littledale, Mr. Chas. (Harley 
Street), 921 

Lushington, Miss Amelia 
(daughter of Sir S. L.), 922 
T. Leys, Mr. (Strand), 923 

Lutyens, Mr. N. L. (Temple), 
T. Langford, Capt. (R. N.), 943 

Littledale, Mr., Senr. (Wim- 
pole Street), (The Father of 
893, 921), 956 

Littledale, Miss Hannah (Har- 
ley Street), 6024 

Langford, Mrs. Geo. (wife 
of Capt. L., R.N.), 6032 
T. Laurie, Capt. Robert, R.N., 

Linton, Mrs., 6077 

Lindergrun, Mr. John (Ports- 
mouth), 6090 
T. Lambert, Mr. (Lamb's Con- 
duit Street), 6093 
T. Leather, Sir George (29, 
Manchester Street), 6094 

Leake, Mr. Robert (14th 
Foot), 6163 

Landroth, Mr. (of Grenada), 
for Mr. Arbuthnot, 6165 

Lushington, Sir Stephen, the 
late, 6173, 6174, 6183 

Lushington, Sir Henry (Har- 
ley Street, son of Sir S. L.), 

Luard, Mrs. (wife of Col. L., 
of the Gcorgiana E. I. 
Packet), D. 018 

Lindsell, Mr. Robert, D. 094 

Magdalen (after Sir T. L.), 20 

More, Mr., 27 

More, Miss (New Street, 
Covent Garden), 38 

Maitland, Mr. W. (Fenchurch 
Street), 63 

Martin, Mr. (Bri.stol), 88, 130 

Monk, Mr. (Attorney-General, 
Canada), 169, 171 

Maitland, Mr. W. (Gough 
Square), 218 

Movin, Mr. (Geo. Street, St. 
James's Square), 222 

Maitland-Maitland, Mr. (Lon- 
don Street, City), 228 (Sur- 
geon, Adelphi), 526 

Maitland, Mr. David (Fen- 
church Street), 234 

Montague, Mrs. (Bryanston 
Street), as Juliet with 
dagger, 235 

Mundy, Miss (Portland 
Street), 272 

MiUington, Mr. (Chelsea), 291; 
Mrs. ,311 

Maude, Hon. Mr. (Berkeley 
Square), 296 

Mendhurst, Miss (Brighton), 

Martinius, Mr. (Merchant, 

Green Lettice Lane), 338 ; 

Mrs., 367 
T. Morrogh, Mr. (America), 341 
Morrison, General (Chiswick), 

Manby (or Manley), Mr. 

(Gray's Inn), 357 
Mann, Mr. Cornelius (Royal 

Artillery). 376, 397 
Malcolm, Mrs. (see Stopford) 
Mathias, Mr. H., 422 
T. Martelli, Mr. H. (Chancery 

Lane) 438 
Morell, Mrs., 475 



Meyrick, Mrs., 477 

Mansfield, Mr. (Lincoln), 480 

Martin, Miss Mary (Maryle- 
bone New Road), 502 
T. Mann, Capt. Gotha (Royal 

Artillery), 518, 6089, 397 
T. Munden, Mr. (Covent Garden 
Theatre), 539 

Mansfield, Mrs. (Leicester), 562 

Martyr, Mr. Joseph (Black- 
heath), 577 

More, Miss Louisa (Linley, 
Salop), 596 

Moultrie, Mrs. (Great Port- 
land Street), 614 ; late 
Governor, 629 

Moresby, Miss, 619 

Morris, Mrs. and Capt. (Char- 
lotte Street), 632 

Missing, Mrs. (nr. Chichester), 

Meek, Mr. (Basinghall Street), 

Middleton, Mrs. (Crowfield 

Park, Suffolk), 701 
Moore, Mrs. (Brooke Street), 

March, Mr. (Salt Hill, Berks), 

T. Mordaunt, Master (Leaden- 
hall Street, E. J. Cadet), 758 

Meadows, Capt. (East India- 
man), 790 

Metger, Mr. (Altona), 792 

Marsh, Mr. (Stock Exchange), 
T. Miller, Mr. (America), 821, 

Mortimer, Mrs. (Upper Nor- 
ton Street), 831, 886 
T. Mead, Major Hon. John (son 
of Earl of Clanwilliam), 874 

Mead, Mrs. (see Loveden) 

Miller, late Mrs. (wife of 
Capt. M.), 940 p. 

Montague, Mrs. (daughter of 
Sir Wm. Rush), 980 ; Mas- 
ter, 983 
T. Mainwaring, Mr. (Jeweller, 
Chancery Lane), 990 

T. Murray, Mr. (Rotterdam), 
6040, 61 10 

Massey, Mrs. (now living 
with Marquis of Head- 
fort), 6058 

Morley, Mr. (i6th Light 
Dragoons), 61 15, 6133 

Martyr, Mr. Joseph (Green- 
wich), 61 2 1 

Mills, Capt. (14th Light Dra- 
goons), 6167 

Mansell, Mrs. (Spring Street, 
Baker Street), 6170 

Mowbray, Mr. Geo. (brother 
of Mrs. Geo. Smith), 619 1 

Morincourt, Mr. R.N. (Green 
wich), 6196 

Mulgrave, Lord, D. 013 

Mohammed Sheik, D. 033 

Morley, Mrs., D. 065 

McDonald (43rd), Mr., 249 

Mackenzie, Col. (New Caval 
ry), 299 

Mackenzie, Mr. Colin (Edin.), 

Mackenzie, Mr. Alexander 

(N. Y.), 335 
T. MacEvoy, Miss (Manchester 

Street), 640; Mr. (Santa 

Cruz), 650, 651 
T. Mackenzie, Mr. Alex (Ross- 
shire), 899 
T. Mackenzie, Mr. Wm. (as 

Surgeon to Madras), 6046 
T. Mackenzie, Mr. Kenneth 

(Ross-shire, N.B.), 6067 

T. McDermot, Master, 6098 

McGee, the late Mr., 6151 

Newland, Abraham (The 

Bank), 62 
Newman, Mr. (Henley Park, 

Surrey), 204 
Nichols, Mr. (Surgeon, 

Brompton), 319, 489 ; Mrs. 

T. Ness, Mr., 392 

Nodes, Mr. (Bond Street), 441 
T. Nightingale, Col., 343, 757 



Niblett, late Mr. (Gloster), 

Newman, Revd. Mr. (Ips- 
wich), 668 

Nighting.alc, Mrs. (daughter 
to Sir Lionel Darrell), 762 

Nard Comtc de (Emigr6), 781 

Norman, Master Chas. (son 
of Lady Eliza N., and 
grandson to Duchess of 
Rutland, 809 

Nussey, Mr. (Woodbridge, 
Ipswich), 847 
T. Neilson, Mr. (Hunter Street, 
Brunswick Square), 6086, 
D. 060 

O.baldeston, Mr. (Spring, 
field Grove, Sussex), 377 
T. Oliphant, Mr. (Keston, near 
Hounslow), 6050 

Oswald, Miss (near Edin- 
burgh), 61 13 

Oliphant, Mrs., eye of, size 
of a shilling, 6148 

O'Callaghan, Mr., 6164 

Prate, Mr., 34 

Parker, Master J no. (aged 

10). 47 
Parker, Mr. Jno. (Ireland), 

Petrie, old Mrs.(Soho Square), 

Petrie, Major (72nd), 66 
Paine, Mr. (Bristol), 87 
Plate, Mr. (Bristol), 90 
Powell, Master, 165 
Parker, Capt. John, 186. 
Parker, Mr. Jno. (St. Paul's 

Churchyard), 213 
Peters, Dr. (Pimlico), 239 
Peters, Mr. Birdsey (Pim- 
lico), 242 
Pange, Marchioness of (Emi- 
gre), 252 
Parker, Mrs. (Green Park, 
Youghal), 255 ; Mr., 369 

Priestley, Mrs. (Bishopsgate 
Street), 258 

Parker, Mrs. (Halifax), 282 

Passingham, Capt. R. (Ches- 
ter), 331, 349 
T. Parker, Mr. Jno. (Attorney, 
HaHfax), 339 

Pattenson, Mr. (Cumber- 
land), 356 

Pepys, Mr. Wm. (Eton Coll.), 

Pepys, Mr. Chas. (Wimpole 
Street), 384 

Pheazant, Mr. (Sheffield), 411 

Parker, Miss (Croomes Hill, 
Greenwich), 424; Miss 
Sarah, 463 (see Bingham) 

Passingham, Mrs. Robert 
(Chester), 438 

Pomeroy, Hon. Geo., 439 

Payne, Mr. Jno. (Richmond), 
nephew to Dowager Lady 
Northampton, 517 

Pearson, Miss Hannah(daugh- 
ter of Sir R. P., Greenwich 
Hospital), 568, 907 

Pearson, Miss Mary (daughter 
of Sir R. P., Greenwich 
Hospital), 575 

Pattenson, Mr. C. (Cumber- 
land), 384 
T. Phipps, Mr. Jno. Wathen 
(Cork Street), 586, 803; 
Mrs. Eliza, 794, D. no 

Petre, Miss (Shrewsbury-), 591 

Panting, Mr. F. (Shrewsbury) , 
T. Parker, Mr. Oxley (Chelms- 
ford), 601 

Pej-ton, Mrs. (Edin.). 658 

Priest, Miss (Bristol), 666 

Pearson, Mr. (Surgeon, Arm- 
iston. East Indiaman), 714 

Prajer, Miss Harriet (A Jew- 
ess), 724 

Pearce, Miss Eliza (see 

Palmer, Mr., 795 

Page, Mr. (Great St. Helens), 
80 1 



Payne, Mrs. (Wigmore Street), 

810, 856 
Philips, Mr., (father of Major 

Passingham), 816 
T. Peacock, Mr. Sandford 

(Devonshire Street), 840; 

Mrs. Geo. (Rachel), 842 
Paul Mr. J. Dean (Banker, 

Strand), 863 
T. Pole, Mr. Peter (Bedford 

Square), 891 
T. Pearson, Mr., 901 
T. Pearson, Mr. (Bombay), 905, 

Phipps, Miss Georgiana, as a 

Cherub (Cork Street), 951, 

Parker, Vice-Admiral (the late 

Sir Wm. Parker, Bart.), 

6008, 601 1 ; Lady P., 6010 
Peacock, Mrs. Geo. (daughter 

of Lady Dalling), 6015 
Pearson, Capt. (R.N., son to 

late Sir Rich. P.), 6205, 6108 
Plowden, Servant to Mr., 

Paxton, Mr. Archibald (Buck- 

ingham Street, Strand), 

Pordon, Miss (Berners Street), 

for Mr. Kay, 6172 
Peters, Mr. Birdsey (New 

York). D. on 
Pole, Hon. Mrs. (Hanover 

Street), D. 014 
Phipps, Miss Anne (Cork 

Street), D. 021, D. 090 
Phipps, Hon. Col. Edmund 

(brother to Lord Mul- 

grave), D. 036 
Phipps, Watkins (Godson to 

W. Wood), see D. 090, 

D. 112 
Phipps, Mr. D., 120 
Pott, Miss (Castle Street, 

Southwark), D. 123 

Rogers, Mrs. (Bristol), 94 
Ross, Capt., 108 

Redwood, Mr. (Charlotte 
Street, Portland Place), 
109 ; Mrs., 112 
Ross, Mr. (Crown Street, 
Westmin.ster), 118, 121 ; 
Mrs., 128 
Raymond, Mr. Stephen (Pot- 
ton, Bed.s), 160 
Redwood, Mr. (Dragoons), 

Russell Copy after (Miss 

Knight of Brompton), 220 
Roberts, Capt. Fr. (Frigate, 

Success), 221 
Reeves, Miss (Hadley), 262 
Robins, Miss (near Oxford), 

T. Rawlins, Miss (Portland 

Street), 301 
Reeve, Mr. (Leeds), 307, 308 
Russell, Lady Will (2 eyes 

of), 314 
Ramus, Mrs. (Baker Street), 

Riggs,Mr. (Russell Place), 405, 
Rimington, Mrs. (Southend), 

406 ; Mr.Chas., (Southgate), 

Middlesex), 486 
Rawden, Miss Eliz. (niece to 

Earl Moira) (aged 3), 415 
Roberton, Capt. Peter (8th 

Foot), 419 
Ricketts, Mr. (Bombay 

Marine), 430, 662, Mrs. (Wimbledon), 445 
Rawden, Col. Geo., 556 
Russell, Mr. Robert (Exeter), 

Richardson, Mr. Hy., Jr. 

(Derby). 544 ; Mrs., 545 
Robinson, Mrs. (Biillwell, 

Notts.), 578, 580, Mr, 661 
Rickards, Miss Maynard 

(Abergavenny), 587 
Robinson, Mrs. (Nottingham), 

Ramsay, Mr. (Sec, E.I. Co.), 

Rooke, Mrs. (late of Chelten- 
ham), 615 




T. Rush. Sir Wm. (Pall Mall), 

624, 973 
Kollcston, Master Chas. (Pim- 

lico), 655 
Ricketts, Miss Eliza, 698 
Russell, Miss (Exeter), 733 
Ross. Old Mr. (Streatham), 


Rutland, Dowager Duchess 
of, 768 

Rycroft, Lady (Clarges 
Street), 774 

Riddell,Mr. Ralph, 778 (friend 
of Jerningham), 862 

Rand, Capt. (E. I. Co., Array), 
T. Roche, Mr. (Cork), 867 

Robinson, Mr. (Manchester), 
T. Robertson, Capt. (after Pli- 

mer), 914 
T. Radclifie, Revd. Mr. (Lime- 
house), 942 
T. Rowles, Capt. (E. I. Co., 

Cavalry), 975 
T. Riddell, "Mr. Ralph (North- 
umberland), 994 
T. Ramsey, Col. Wm. (ist Cey- 
lon Regt.), 999 

Ridley, Mr. (son of Sir M. R., 
Bart.), 6004 
T. Ryves, Capt. (8th Light 
Dragoons), 6017; wife, 

Rooke, Miss (Cheltenham), 

Rockox, Nicholas, after Ru- 
bens (aged 64), dated 
1624, 6065 
T. Rolfe, Mr. Edmund (Norfolk), 

Ray, Miss (as an Interesting 
Story), 6160 

Rowley, late Capt. G. (E. I. 
Co., Army), 6161 

Rawlinson, Mrs. (Mistress of 
Lord Folkestone), 6182, 
D. 104 

Rolls, Mrs. (Paragon Kent 
Road), D. 055 

Sutherland, Capt., 21 
Sainsbury, Miss (Ludgate 

Hill), 36, 28 
Shakespeare, 43 
Summer, Jas. (Hampstead), 

50 Mrs.. 73 
Steward, Lieut. (71st Foot), 51 
Smith, Mrs. (Duchess Street), 

53, Master G., 56 
Scott, Mrs. (Forge Longtown, 

Cumberland), 54 
Seaton, Master Andrew, 60 
Small, Col. (84th Foot), 65, 

276, 448, 377, when Major- 

Seton, Mrs. (Devonshire 

Place), 68 ; Miss, 371 ; 

Miss Kitty, 563 
Stevens, Mrs. Jas. (Bristol), 


Spence, Mr. (E. I. Co.), 113 

Slaney, Moreton, Esq. (Salop), 

Shirley, Mr., 136 

Saunders, Mr. (Taunton), 137 

Smith, Mrs., 138 

Skeffington, Mr. (Skeffington, 
Leicester), 142 

Stripling, Mr. (Jeweller, Lich- 
field), 157 

Stevens, Mr. Wm. (Bristol), 


Shirreff, Mr., 206, 216 

Sydenham, Mr. (Frith Street, 
Soho), 214; Mrs., 559 

Spencer, Countess, 229 

Stevens, Mr. (Shrewsbury), 

Stock, Miss (Islington), 237 

Savage, Miss (Pimlico), 241 

Sparkes, Miss Julia (Black- 
heath), 250 

Sparkes, Master Hy., 251 

Sparkes, Mr., 253 

Smith, Mr. John (Camber- 
well), 260, 268 

Sparkes, Mr. Joseph (Essex 
Street, Strand), 267, 292 

Sparkes, Miss (Blackheath), 



Sparkes, Mr. John (Black- 
heath), 274 

Salmon, Mr. (Barnes), 297 

Seton, Mr. Daniel (Devon- 
shire Place), 315 

Slaney, Mr. Plowden (Salop), 

Smith, Mr. (Berks), 383 

Stuart, Col. Jno. (2nd Foot- 
guards), 402, 434 (as Sir 
John, K.B.), 6180 

Smith, Miss, 464 

Sperhng, Revd. Jas., 465 

Schneiders, Miss (Southgate), 

Savage, Mr., 476 

Smith, Mr. Geo. (Saville Row), 

Sawyer, Miss Frances (Hey- 
wood House, Bucks), 492, 

493 ' 

Stopford, Master Thos. 
(Sloane Street), 503 ; Mrs., 
507- 560 

Spooner, Mr. (Warwickshire), 
506, Lillington after- 

Self,Mrs. Jas. (Trowbridge), 
522, 531 

Saxe, Mr. ,540 

Sydenham Revd. Humphrey, 


Shute, Mr. (Frenchay, near 
Bristol), 574 
T Salisbury, Mr. Edward (Lan- 
caster), 583 
T. Starkey, Revd. Mr., 597 

Service, Miss (Finsbury 
Square), 60 

Shepherd, Mrs. (late of Leeds) , 

Swan, Mr. (Belfast), 621 

Salisbury, Mr. Henry (Man- 
chester), 649 

Schneiders, Miss (Southgate), 

Silvester, Miss (Dominica), 
T. Slaughter, Mr. (Worcester- 
shire), 725, 736 

Salisbury, Mr. (Dorsetshire), 

T. Saltau, Mr. Geo. (Green Let- 
tice Lane), 735 
Scott, Mrs., 767 
Sorell, Miss, 771 
T. Slack, Mr. Thos. (Braywick, 
Bucks), 783, 946; wife, 
Shepherd, Mr. Thos. (Cloth 
Factor) , ( Basinghall Street) , 
Shuttleworth, Mr. (Sun Tav. 
ern Fields), 807 
T. Sykes, Capt. (R.N.), 815 
Smith, Miss (demi-dark 
daughter of Mr. Alexander, 
of Calcutta), 819 
T. Shepherd, Master Joseph 

(Leeds), 858 
T. Stuart, Mr. Jas. (Solicitor- 
General, Halifax), 904 
T. Stuart, Mr. (Alderston, Had- 
dington, Scot.), 915 
T. Snell, Revd. Thos., 919, 6102 
T. Stavis, Mr. (Great Abshott. 
Titchfield, Hants), 950, 
Sowle, Miss Sarah (Ward of 

Dr. Cherson), 968 
Sebright, Mrs. Marianne 
(Hertford Street, Mayfair), 
984, 6124, 6128 
Seward, Miss Elizabeth (first 
cousin of Kitty Beach- 
croft), 987 (afterwards Mrs. 
Mathew B. 6009 
Skreen, Mr., friend of, 988 
Stopford, Miss (Kensington), 
see Wyatt 
T. Shuttleworth, Mr. Geo. Ed. 
(Austin Friars), 834, 993 
Sydenham, Mr. Thos. (Bond 

Street), 996 
Slack, Mrs. Thos. (Blooms- 
bury Square), 6000 
Squires, Mr. (brother of Mrs. 
Dongan), 6007 
T. Stock, Mr. Wm. (Redcliffe 
Parade, Bristol), 6014 
U * 



Seward, Mrs. (Milnian Street, 
Bedford Row), mother-in- 
law to Col. Beachcroft, 
T. Shcddon, Mr. Geo. (Bedford 
Square), 6033 ; wife, 6039 
T. Sheddon, Mr. Wm. (Gower 

Street), 6037 
T. Stirling, Capt. (Foot-guards), 

T. Sheddon, Mr. Bridger (Gower 
Street), brother of 6033, 
T. Scott, Master Hy. (147, Lead- 

enhall Street), 6042 
T. Smith, Mr. Jas. (Baker Street, 
late of Bombay), 6045; wife 
T. Samson, Mrs. (Blackheath, 
wife of Capt. S., of Earl 
St. Vincent, E. I.M., Capt., 
6204), 6049 

Smith, Mrs. J. J. (born Miss 
Wiple), 6051 

Slack, the late Mrs. (Brays- 
wick), 6053 
T. Stuart, Major-General Sir 
John, 6073 

Smith, Mrs. (Castle Barr 
House, near Ealing), 6079 
T. Slack, Mr. Senr. (Bloomsbury 
Square), 6085 

Savage, Miss (Weymouth 
Street), 6109 

Sebright, Miss (Hertford 
Street, Mayfair), 61 16 

Smith, Miss, 6126 

Stowell, Capt. (2nd Life- 
guards), 6150 

Shuttleworth, Mr. John (St. 
George's E., son of 807), 

Simpson, Miss Sophia (John 
Street), 6169 
T. Sampson, Capt. (E. I. Co., 
Navy), 6204 

Sheane, Capt., 6210 

Simmons, Mrs., D. 046 

Stanclifife, Mr. John (Temple 
and Caius Coll.), D. 029 

Stuart, Miss (Sloane Street), 

D. 043 
St. Aubyn, Lady, D., 105 
Stanley, the late Sir joh« 

(Cheshire), D. 107 

Traile, Mr. (Edin.), 57 

Townsend, Meredith (Fair- 
ford), 79, 114 

Thistle, Mr. (Bristol), 93 

Thomas, Mr. Josiah (Bristol), 
98, 103 ; Mrs., 99 

Taunton, a Mr., of, no 

Thornton, Miss Ann (Beav- 
mount Street), 122 

Tickell, Mrs., 134 

Thornton, Ed., Esq. (Grenada 
W. L), 149. 153 

Templer, Capt. Hy. (Prince's 
Light Dragoons), 150 

Tebbs, Mr. (Paternoster Row), 

Truman, Miss (Pimlico), 246 

Townley, Mr., 271 

Treves, Mrs. (Calcutta), 302, 

Tremenheere, Miss (Jermyn 

Street), 313 ; Mr., 320 
Thomas, Mrs. (Fulham), 427 
Tayler, Miss, 482 
Trundell, Miss, 585 
Tarleton, Hon. Major-Genl., 

630, 646 ; Mr. Thos., 645, 

Tebbs, Mr. (Bond Street), 642 
Topham, Mrs. (Chertsey), 664 
Trumbell (M. P.), see Laurens. 
T. Tufton, Hon. Mr., 681, 699 
Taylor, Capt. (7th Dragoons), 

Taylor, Mrs. (Fulham^, 799 
Turner, Mrs. (Queenhithe), 

T. Thoyts, Mr. John (Blues), 894 
Taswall, Eye of Mr. (Madras 

Civil Establishment), 966 
Tarleton, Capt., Thos. 6030 
Thompson, Miss (Knights- 
bridge), 6047 



T. Thomas, Mr. Chas. (Earl St. 

Vincent, E. I. M.), 6054 
T. Thompson, Mr. (Dentist, Geo. 

Street, Hanover Square), 


Turner, Mr. Chas. (Jeweller, 

Holies Street, Bond Street), 

6147 ; Mrs., 6168 
Tupper, Mr. (New Burlington 

Street), 6199 
Thomas, Little Mary Ann, of 

Bristol, D. 04 

Unknown, 129, 354, 451, 456, 
478, 859, 887, 897, 981 

Usborne, Mrs. (Finsbury 
Square), 350 

Vaux, J no. (Austin Friars), 

Vestal, A, at the altar, 913 

Wharton, Miss Eliz. and Miss 

Margaret (Yorks), 416 
Wallis, Miss (Covent Garden 

Theatre), 420 
WHliaras, Mrs. Jas. (Bedford 

Square), 426 
Windsor, Mr., 446 
Warrell, Miss H., 452 
Watson, Miss (Sloane Street), 

4.5.3. 491 
Waller, Revd., 466 
Ware, Mrs. (New Bridge 

Street), 428 
T. Williams, Mr. Robt. (Lamb's 

Conduit Street), 481 ; Mr. 

W. Senior, 490 ; Miss 

Grace, 581 
Whyatt, Mr. (Queen Anne 

Street), 504 
Watts, Miss (afterwards Mrs. 

Gordon), 513, 524 
Wright, Mr. (Merchant, Hull), 


Worswick, Mr. (Lancaster), 

Wistinghausen, Mr. (Bow 
Lane), 530 ; Master Ed- 
mund), 6092 

Wells, Mr. Jas., 546 

Welstead, Mr. Chas. (Custom 
House), 558 

Whingate, Miss Kitty (Grand- 
daughter to Ly. Franklin), 

Watson, Miss (Faulkbourne 

Hall, Essex), 582 
Watson, Mr. (King's Dra- 
goon Guards), 599 
T. Wright, Mr. Geo. (Rochford 

Hall, Essex), 620 
T. Williams, William (Warley 
E. L Navy), 647, 811, 970 
W^orswick, Mr. Rich. (Lan- 
caster), 648 
Wausey, Miss (Lothbury), 


Weston, Capt. (H.M.S. 
Taraar), 660 

Welsh, Mr. Wm. (Fenchurch 
Street), 670 
T. Ward, Col. (Foot-guards), 

Wightman, Mr. (Temple), 
719 ; Mrs., 722 
T. Wilkinson, Mr. Thos. (Dur- 
ham), 721 ; Mrs., 746 

Walker, Mrs. (Teabroker, Old 
Broad Street), 753 
T. Williams, Mr. Locker (son to 
Lieut. -Governor of Green- 
wich) (8th Light Dragoons), 

763. 785 
T. Way, Late Mr. Gregory 
(Richmond Green). 779, 
791, 866; Master Lewis, 
780, 875 ; Mrs., 898 
Worsley, Miss Charlotte 
(daughter of Lady W. and 
Co.), 800. Square 
Wathen, Mr. (Kensington), 

Williams, Miss, 804 
T, Williams, Mr. Jas. (Bedford 
Square), 836, 6022 
White, Mrs. D. (Finsbury 
Square), 653 
T. Warner, Mr. (Sloane Street), 



T. Wood, Mr. (Cork), 935 
T. White, Revd. Thos. (Devon- 
shire Place), 945 
Wright, Miss Frances (Maple- 
durham, Oxon), 957 (see 
T. Wright, Mr. (White Street, 

Boro), 978 
T. Weekes, Revd. Mr. (Bar- 

badoes), 6028 (or Wickes) 
T. Way, Master Wm. (Great 

Ealing, M'sex), 6071 
T. Way, Mr. Felix (Old Broad 

Street), 6072 
T. Wathen, Mr. Nat. (Stroud, 
Glos.), 6076 
Watson, Revd. Mr. (Man- 
ningtree, Essex, nephew 
of Col. Bullock), 6135 
Wyatt, Mrs. Benjamin (Buck- 
ingham Street, Fitzroy 
Square), 6136 
Wentworth, Mr., 6142 
Wood, Mr., Senr., D. 08 
Watts, Mrs. (afterwards Mrs. 
Brooksbank) (Harley 

Street), D. 034 
T. Wyatt, Mr. (Queen Anne 
Street E., late of Calcutta), 

White, Miss (Somerset Street), 

Wood, Miss, 5, 22, 40, 72, 

158, 266, 409, 623; Mrs., 

Woulfe, Sir Jacob, 7 
Wright, Mr. (Tooley Street), 

Wood, Mrs. (Surrey Street), 

Wood, W. (Self.), 45, 277 
Wright, Dr. Jas. (E. I.), 


West, Mr. R. L. (Newman 
Street), 76 

Wood, Mr., Senr., 140 

Williams, Revd. Mr. (Aber- 
gavenny), 152, 154 

Walton, Mrs. (Norton Street), 

Wistinghausen, Mrs. (wife of 

530), 6103 
Wright, Miss (Jermyn Street), 

Wolsley, Admiral, 197 
Whitaker, Mr., 217 
Weatherall, Mr. (Serjeant's 

Inn), 224 
Wood, Mrs., 226 
Watson, Mr., 233 
Whitley, Mrs. (Bond Street), 

Watts, Miss (Devonshire 

Street), 280 
Wynne, Mr. (Wales), 295 
Worswick, Mr. (Lancaster), 

Willy ams, Mr. J. B., 316 
Wiple, Miss (Southampton 

Street), 326 
Whittle, Mr. (Belfast), 361 
Wingfield,'.Capt. (The Guards), 

Woolcomb, Mr. (near Ply- 
mouth), 394 
White, Capt. (8oth Foot), 395 
WTiite, Mr. (Somerset), 404 
T. Weatherell, Miss (Southend) 


Ximenes, Mrs., (Margaret St.), 

Yough, Mrs. (Oxford Road), 

Yates, Miss Fanny (Carlisle), 

Yates, Miss, 244 
Yonge, Miss Maria (Lamb's 

Conduit Street), 368 
Young, Mr. (Philadelphia), 

T. Yonge, Mr. Jas. (St. James' 

Street), 551, 6026 
Yates, Capt. (50th Foot), 909, 

D. 121 
Yonge, Mrs. (wife of Capt.), 

6005 ; Major Yonge, 6185 
York, H.R.H., The Duke of 

(done for Mrs. Clarke), 6126 


Abercombie, Mrs. John — Mins. 68 
Abcrdare, Lord^ — Min. 122 
Abergavenny, Baron G. N.— Port. 14 
Abington, Lady — Port. 146 
Abington, William — Port. 165 
Academy, Royal — Exhibitors, etc., Alefoun- 

der J., 181 ; Bone, H., 197 ; Chalon, 185 ; 

Cosway, R., 108, 115, 249 ; Egloy, 186 ; 

Engleheart, G., 126; Essex, \V., 198; 

Hone, N., 177 ; Humphry, O., 152, 157 ; 

Lethbridge, \V. S., 179 ; Robertson, A.S., 

183; Scouler, 177; Shelley, S., 175J; 

Spencer, G., 195, 196 ; Smart, J, 136, 143 ; 

Thorbum 185 ; Wood, W., 164 
Acraman, Miss S. A. — Port., 167 
Acraman Family Children, 168 
Addison, J., 211 ; 209 
Affleck Daughter — Group, 122 
Aguilar Mr. — Poit., 146 
Albemarle, Duke of — Port., 69 
Alefoundcr, J., 181 
Alengon, Due d' — Port., 25, 30 
Allen, Mr. — Port., 165 
Allston, W., 254 

Alnwick Castle — Sherborne MS., 8 
Amelia, Princess — Port., 105 
America — Collections, 241, 242, see also 

Morgan, etc. ; Painters, 254-262 
Amsterdam, see Rijks Museum 
Ancaster, Earl of — Port., 12 
Andre, Maj., 259 
Anne, Queen— Instruction by R. Gibson, 87 ; 

Enamel by Boit, 194 ; Hilliard Portraits, 

34 ; " Limner," 4 ; Oliver, 1., portrait, 40 ; 

Son's portrait, ^210 ; White, G., portrait, 

Anne of Clevcs, Queen — Henry VHI por- 
trait, 12 ; Portrait of by Holbein, 12, 232 
Argyle, Duke of — Nephew's port., 165 
Arlaud — Enamellcr, 194 
Armada Jewel, 28 
Armytage, Sir G. — Port., 146 
Art Colouring Manuf. Co., 249 
Ashmolean Mus. — Bone, H., 192 ; Curator, 

C. F. Bell, 226 ; Enamels, 198, 234 
Athlone, Lord — Port., 210 
Atkinson, S. — Gold Mines in Scotland 29 
Aubert, 194 

Aubrey, Live:^ of Eminent Men, 58 
Audrey, Lady — Port., 124 
Augustin — Miniatures by, 19, 201, 203, 204. 

241, 242 ; Pupil , 204 
Auriol, Mr. — Port., 146 
Baker, Collins — Port., 93 
Balchin, Elizabeth — Port., 146 
Bale, S. — Holbein Port., J2 
Baltimore, G. C. — Port., 44 
Banrks, Charles— Port., 214 
Banks, Maj. — ^Port., 146 

Barnard Castle — Mins., 234 

Barnard, Miss (Mrs. Hicks) — Port., 162 

Baroda, Gaekwar— Coll., 153 

Barret, G., 125 

Barry, Madame Du — Port., 105, 106 

Bartley, Mr. T.— Port., 166 

Bate, W. — Enamcller, 197 

Bath, Holburne Museum Coll., 153 210, 234, 

Bathurst, Ralph — Port., 207 

Batson, Mr.— Port., 146 

Bauch, Pieter Van der, 214 

Baxter Prints — Sold as Mins., 218 

Beale, Bartholomew — Mins. attrib., 95 

Beale, Charles, 93, 94, 95 

Beale, Mary — Beaufort, Henry Somerset, ist 
Duke of, 94 ; characteristics of jxirtraits, 
93 ; Cooper, Samuel, 63 ; death, 95 ; Leiy, 
Sir Peter, 80, 93 ; plumbago drawings, 
213 ; Portraits painted by, 93, 95 ; Self- 
portrait, 93 

Beauchamp, Earl — Collection, Beale, C, 94, 
95 ; Beale, Mary, 94 ; Cooper, S., 70, 72 ; 
Gibson, K., 89 ; I-UUiard, L., 33*, 34 ; Len, 
B., loi ; Loan to S. Kensington, 235 ; 
Petitot, J. L., 193 ; Shutc, J., 30 ; Streets, 
G., 18 

Beaufort, Henry Somerset, ist Duke of — 
Port., 94 

Beaumont, B., 181 

Beechey, Sir W. — Port., 170 

Bell, C. F., 226 

Belvoir Castle Coll. of the Duke of Rutland — 
Cooper, S., 61 ; Hoskins, J., 52, 54 ; Hum- 
phr>', O., 153 ; Manncre Family, 235 ; 
Oliver, L, 41 ; Raleigh Miniatures, 235 

Benet, Miss — Port, 146 

Beninck, Simon — Port., 5 

Benion, Mr. — Port., 166 

Berkeley Castle, 153 

Berkshire, Thomas Howard, Earl of — Moll 
Davis, 55 

Berlin Collections, 240 

Berwick, Duke of — Queen Elizabeth's 
Prayer Book, 30 

Benvick, James Fitzjames, Duke of — Por- 
trait of, 48 

Bettcs, John — Mins. by, 17, 19, 36 

Bettes, Thomas — Min., 36 

Bibliothdque National— -Cajsir MS., 9* 

Bildt, Baron de — Hist, of Queen Christina, 78 

Billingsburst, Mr. G. — Port., 107 

Binnic, Simon— Daughter, 11, 233 ; Liod* 
scapes, 233 ; Portraits, 11, 21, 232 

Birch, Enamcller, 197 

Birch, Capt. — Port., 169 

Blarcnbcrguo, Van — Mins., 20 

Blois Enainollers, 1S9 

Blois, Abnn. de — NcU Gwynne drawing, aij 

Blootelling, A. — Ports., 206 214 




Bogle, J. — Graham, Col., 180 ; Min. paint- 
ing, 178, 179 ; Salting Bequest Mins., 

Bohemia, Frederick, Elector Palatine — 
I'ort., 45 

Bohemia, Queen of — Port., 45 

Boit — Enamel work, 194 ; Pupil Zinckc, 
194, 195 

Bone, Henry — China decorator, 197 ; Copies 
of Old Masters, 197 ; Elizabeth's Court, 
ports., 197; Plumer, N., 117; Royal 
Enamel Painter, 197 

Bone, Henry (jun.) — Queen Victoria, 192 

Bone, H. P. and R. T., 197 

Booty, Afr. — Port., 141 

Bordier, Jacques, 190 ; Cromwell, Oliver, 
191 ; French Court of Louis XIV, 191 ; 
Mayerne, Turquet de, help given by, 190 ; 
Milton, John, 191 ; Watch-cases ena- 
melled, 189, 190 

Bossara, John — Mins. attrib. to, 18, 35 

Boston — Min. Coll., 242 

Bosworth, Sir J. — Snuff-box, 195 

Bourchier, Mr. — Port., 161 

Bouchot, Henri — Book on French Mins., 

Bowyer, Min. painter, 181 

Boydell, Aldennan — Port., 256 

Boydell, Miss — Port., 137 

Bracciano, Paolo Giordano Orsini II., Duke 
of— Corres. with Queen Christina, 78 

Bradley, Dictionary of Miniaturists, 3 

Brandon, Alicia (Mrs. Hilliard) — Marriage, 
27 ; Port., 22, 27 

Brandon, John — Daughter married N. 
Hilliard, 27 

Brenner— Colls, of Mins., 201 

Bridges, Noah — Port., 68 

Bridport, Hugh — Conwell, Dr., Bishop of 
Philadtlphi.i, 260 ; Hopkinson, Francis, 
260 ; Life and Work, 260 

Bringhurst, Mr. — Flag with Washington 
Port., 257 

Bristol, Earl of— Port., 36 

Bristol, Marquess of, see Ickworth Pk. Coll. 

Bristow, Mrs. Robert— Port., 168 

British Institute — Exhibits by W. Wood, 
167, 168 

British Museum — Books on Miniatures, 229, 
230 ; Caesar's " De Hello Gallico " MS., 
9' ; Humphry, O., drawin.?s, 153 ; Oliver, 
I., drawings, 41 ; Plumbago portraits, 
233 ; Print Room, 229 ; Regimine Prin- 
cipis, De, MS., 8 ; White, R., 209 

Bronzino — Mins., 240 

Brooke, Miss — Port., 170 

Brounckhurst, Arthur San — Gold mines in 
Scotland, 29, 31 ; Paintings, 32 

Browne, Mrs. — Port., 162 

Brownlow, Earl — Collection, 101 

Brussels — Forged Miniatures, 221 

Buccleuch and Queensberry, Duke of. Col- 
lection — Anonymous Mins., 17, 18 ; Beale, 
C, 95 ; Cooper, A., 77 ; Cooper, S., 61, 69 ; 
Crosse, L., 86, 97 ; Dixon, N., attributed, 
83 ; Hilliard, N., 20, 20*, 21', 22, 28, 33 ; 
Hilliard, R., 27; Holbein, H., 10, 12, 13, 
14 ; Hoskins, J., 52, 54, 56 ; Loan to the 

V. and A. Museum, 234 ; Oliver, I., 39, 41 ; 

Oliver, P., 44, 45 ; Ross, Mrs., 88 
Buchanan, George — Port., 32 
Bucharest — Min. Coll., 241 
Buck, Adam, 181 

Buckingham, Duch. of — .Min., 8.«; ; Port., 94 
Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of — ■ 

Port., 85 ; Holbein's Port, of Jane Sey- 
mour, 12 
Bull, Min. Painter, 179 
Bulteel Family — Ports., 210 
Bur, Leonard — Port., 10 
Burdett-Coutts, Baroness — Family Mins., 

237 ; Ross, Sir William, Mins., 184 ; 

Strawberry Hill Collection, 39, 237 ; 

Vandyck copy by P. Oliver, 43 
Burghley Collection, see Exeter, Marquess of 
Burlington Mag. — N. Hilliard, 24 
Burrell Collection— Min., 69 
Butler, Capt. — Ports., 162 
Bvron, Lord — Port., 186 
Cassar's " De Bello Gallico " MS.— PortMUH 

attributed to J. Clouet, 9 
Cambridge, Mrs. George — Port., 166 
Cambridge, Mr. — Litho., 171 
Campbell, Mr. — Port., 165 
Campbell, Mrs. — Port., 167 
Captal, Miss .\nn — Port., 168 
Carew, Sir G. — Port., 146 
Carlisle, |Lord, Collection — Dixon, N., 83 ; 

Humphry, O., 153 
Carnarvon, Lady — Port., 89 
Caroline, Queen — Port., 66 
Carr, Lady Anne — Port., 89 
Carrandini, Paolo — Life, 84 ; Mary of 

Modcna, ports., 84 ; Mins., 84 
Castlemaine, Lady — Port., 193 
Catherine Howard, Queen — Ports., 10, 12, 

13 ; White, R., 209 
Catherine Parr, Queen — Port., 12 
Cavendish, Thomas — Port., 39 
Chalon — Min. painter, 185 
Chamberlayne, Mr. — Purchase of mins., l6< 
Chandos, Lord — Port., 39 
Chantilly— Caesar s " De Bello Gallico " MS. 

Charles I— Copies of Old Jfastere by P. 

Oliver, 43, 45 ; Enamellers Petitot and 

Bordier, 190 ; Faber J., 210, 212 ; Gerbier, 

B. (as Prince Charles), 85 ; Great Seal of, 

drawings by J. Hoskins, 51 ; Hilliard, N., 

portrait of Queen Elizabeth, 33 ; Hoskins, 

J., 50, 54 ; Oliver, P., 45 ; Petitot, J., 

enamel, 191 
Charles II— Cooper, S., Ports., 59, 63, 71 ; 

Davis, Moll, 55 ; Diploma Deed, 6 ; 

Faithomc, W., 211, 214 ; Goodwood 

port., 5 ; Granges, D. des, 91 ; Hoskins, 

J. (as a boy), 54 ; " Limnings " Coll., 4 ; 

Loggan, D., 6, 207 ; Oliver, P., story of 

wife, 42 ; Prieur, aJfterS. Cooper, 192, 193 ; 

White, R., 209 
Charles X of Sweden — Port., 78 ; Isabey, 201 
Charlotte, Queen — Enamel painter, S. 

Finney, 196 ; Queen Elizabeth's ftayer 

Book, 30 
Chaucer, Geoffrey — Port., 8 
Cberon — EnameUer, 194 



Chinnery, George — Mins., i8r 

Chodowiecki — Mins., 20, 204 

Christ's Hospital — Drawing Master B. Lens. 

Christina, Queen — Corres., 78 ; Ports., 75, 

Church, J. B.— Sons P. and J., port., 180 

Clare, John Holies, ist Earl of, 52 

Clark, Alfred — Sketch port., 141 

Clarke, Dr.— Port., 170 

Clarke Hon. G. — Charles I port., 210 

Claverton, Mrs.— Min., 27 

Clay, Mr. Joseph— Port., 168 

Clayton Family — Ports., 122 

Clench, Sir John — Port., 41 

Cleveland, Duchess of, 69 

Cleveland Min. Coll., 242 

Cleyn, Charles — Mins., 84 

Cleyn, Francis— Mins. attrib. to, 89 ; Royal 
Tapestry Works, Mortlake, 83 

Cleyn, John — Mins. by, 84 

Cleyn, Penelope — Mins by attrib. to, 84 

Clive, Kitty— Port., 114 

Clouet, Jean (Janet)— -Caesar's " De Bello 
Gallico " MS., ports., 9 ; Cosse, Charles de, 
Martehal de Brissac, 10 ; Mins. by, 17 

Clovio, Giulio — Grirnani Breviary, 5, 6 

Cobham, Lord, Collection, 69 

Cockbum, Thomas — Port., 138 

Cockerell, Mr. Robert — Port., 169 

Collins, Richard — Min. att. to, of Kitty Clive, 
114 ; Pupil of J. Meyer and J. Plott, 198 

Collins, Samuel, 148, 181 

Comberbach, Mr. — Port., 165 

Comerford, J. — Min. painter, 179 

Comthwait, Mrs. — Min., 165 

Conway, Baroness — Port., 97 

Conway, Viscount — Port., 57 

Conwcll, Dr., Bp. of Philadelphia — Port., 

Consort, Prince — Enamel port., 199 

Cooke, Mrs. — Port., 169 

Cooper, Alexander — Anon, mins., 77 ; Charles 
X of Sweden, 78 ; Christina, Queen, 78 ; 
death, 77 ; enamel portraits, 78 ; Elector 
Frederick and Family, 74, 75 ; Gustavus 
Adolphus, 76 ; Hoskins, John, uncle, 51 ; 
James II, port., 75 ; Palatine, Prince, 78 ; 
Sweden, 75, 77 

Cooper, Mrs. — Port., 64 

Cooper, Samuel — Albemarle, Duke of, 69 ; 
Bridges, Noah, 68 ; Characteristics, 69, 70, 
71, 73, 74 ; Charles H, 59, 71 ; Cleveland, 
Duchess of, 69 ; Cromwell, Oliver, 60, 69 ; 
Cowley, Abraham, 72 ; Death, 63, 81 ; 
Exeter, 4th Earl of, 6i ; Exeter, Lady, 61 ; 
Fleetwood, G., 95 ; Forged Mini.itures, 
221 ; Graham, Col., of Nelherby, 68 ; 
Genius and ability, 58, 6i ; Hobbcs, 
Thomas, 58 ; Holies, Sir F., 64 ; Hoskins, 
John, 51, 58 ; Inscription on Min., 225 ; 
James H as Duke of York, 68 ; Lemon, 
Margaret, 71 ; Life, 58, 61 ; London, John, 
Lord, 62, 71 ; May, Sir Thomas, 69 ; Mon- 
mouth, Duke of, 62, 69, 71 ; Monument to, 
65, 66 ; Morgan Collection, 241 ; Musical 
ability, 58, 60 ; Myddleton, Jane, 70, 72 ; 
Oil painting 67 ; Pencil drawing, 206 ; 

Pepys, Mrs., 59, 60 ; Percy, A., Lord High 
Admiral, 233 ; Pupil Jean L. Petitot. 194 ; 
Royal Limner, 63 ; Sandwirb, Earl of, 
233 ; .Self-portraits, 66, 67 ; Shaftesbury, 
Earl of, 71, 74 ; Signature, 73 ; Sothcbv 
Collection, 238 ; Touched-up Miniatures, 
74 ; Unfinished Portraits, 69, 70 ; Wife, 
Christiana, Portrait, 64 ; Wife, Royal 
Pension, 63, 64 ; Will, 65 

Copley — Introd. to C. W. Peale, 259 

Comwallis, Lord — Port., 138 

Correggio — Mins.,'240 

Corvus, Johannes — Mins., 17 

Coss^, Charles, Mar(5chal de Brissac — Port., 
9, 10 

Cosway, Richard — Academician, 108 
.\melia. Princess, 105 ; Barry, Madame 
Du, 105, 106 ; Caricatures and Satires on, 
108, no ; Characteristics, 104, 105, 107, 
126, 127 ; Church, Philip and John, 180 ; 
Concerts and Receptions by Mrs. Cosway, 
108 ; Correspondence, 114 ; Clive, Kitty, 
114; Death, in; Devonshire, Duchess 
of, 105 ; Devonshire, 5th Duke of, Chil- 
dren, 112; Exhibits of Portraits, 108; 
Fitzherbert, 108 ; Forged Mins., 220 ; 
George, Prinrc of Wales, 106 ; Ivory 
Mins., 104 ; Life, 107 ; Mins. copied, 163 ; 
Murray Coll., 239; Parsons, Mrs., 112; 
Pigments used, 246, 249 ; Plimer, An- 
drew, 1x6, 117, 119 ; Pomp and Vanity, 
108, 109, no ; Salting Bequest Mins., 
233 ; Scott, Henrietta, Duchess of Port- 
land, 106; Signature, 113, 114; Smart, 
John, 133 ; Society of Arts Prizes, 105, 
133 ; Training, 107, 108 ; Wallace Collec- 
tion, 234 ; Whittington, Mrs., 225 
Windsor Castle Coll., 235 

Cosway, Maria — Port., 134 

Cosway, Mrs.— Artistic Ability, in, 113 
Coll. at Lodi, in ; Concerts and Recep- 
tions, 108; Honours, 113; Marriage, m 

Cotes, Penelope — Mins. by, 84 

Cotes, Samuel — Enameller, 196 

Cowdray Fire, 39' 

Cowley, Abraham — Port., 72 

Cox, David — Soc. Assoc. Artists iOAI^ter- 
colour, 170 

Cradockes— <;onnection with George Fleet- 
wood, 95 

Craft — Enameller, 197 

Craven, Lord — Port., 146 

CresswcU, Mrs. (Letitia), 169 

Crewe, Lt.-Col. — Portrait, 167 

Crisp Lady — Port. 82 

Critz, John de, 38 

Crofts, General — Port., 210 

Crokcr, John — Wife's port., 22 

Cromwell, Oliver — Ports, of Bancks, Charles, 
214 ; Bordier, 191 ; Cooper, S., 60, 69 ; 
Unknown Artist, 192 

Crosse, Lawrence — .\bility, 80 ; Character- 
istics, 97; Collector, 96; Conway, 
Baroness, 97 ; Dalkeith, Earl of, 97 ; 
Danvers, Mr., 97 ; Marlborough, Duihcss 
of, 97 ; Morgan Coll., 241 ; Newcastle, J. 
Holler, Duke of. 97 ; Pitts, Mr., 97 ; St. 
Albans, Duke of, 97 ; Salting Bequest. 



233 ; Signature, 97 ; Spragge, Sir Ed- 
ward. 85, 97 
Cronnr, John — 4 
Cumberland, Duke of, 99 
Cuinming, Admiral — Port., 167 
Cunliffc, Mr.- — Collection, 239 
Currie, Mr. Lawrence — Coll., 24, 34, 238 
Curt, Dr. — Mins., 37, 38, 41 
Dalkeith, Earl of — Ports, by Crosse, L., 97 ; 

Patrm, D., 213 
Dally, Diana — 142 
Dalrymplr, Sir John— Port. 213 
Dalton, Mr. — Crayon port., 66 
Dance — Oil ports., 163 
Danvcrs, Mr.^ — -Port., 97 
Dartrey, Countess of, Coll. French Portraits, 

237 ; Petitot, J. L,. Enamels, 98, 193 
Dartrey, Earl of — Enamels, 195 
Dashwood, Misses — Ports., 162 
Davidson, Mr. — Port., 146 
Davis, Maj. — Port., 166 
Davis, Moll — Port., 55 
Day, Thomas, 181 
Deiff, W. Jaeobszoon — Port., 213 
Denmark, King of — Prieur's Enamel of 

Charles II, 192 
Denmark Collections of Mins., 239 
Denner, Balthaser — Plumbago drawings, 213 
Dent-Rrocklehurst Coll., 12 
Devonshire, Duchess of — Port., 105 
Devonshire, Duke of. Coll. at Chatsworth — 

Cooper, S., 61, 69 ; Granges, D. dcs, 92 ; 

Hoskins, J., 54 ; Lens, B., 101 ; Petitot 

Enamel, 190 
Devonshire, 5th Duke of — ^Min., 112 
Devonshire House Coll., 236 
Derby, Lord — Coll., 42, 237 
Dibdin — Verses on A. Newland, 162 
Digby, Mr. Wingfield — ^CoU., 237 
Digby, Sir K. and Lady — Ports., 43, 44 
Dillman, John — Kew Palace gardens, 125 
Dillon of Ditchley, Charles Lee, Viscount — 

Port., 150 
Dimier, M. Clouet, J., MS. ports, attrib. to, 

9 ; Cosse, Charles, Marechal de Brissac, 

portrait, 9 
Dinglinger — Enamel portraits, 20, 204 
Dixon, Nicholas — Collections mins. by, 83 ; 

Crisp, Lady, 82 ; Grafton, Duke of (att.), 

83 ; Lady and Child, 82 ; Mortgage of 

Mins., 81 ; Morgan Collection, 241 ; Royal 

" Limner," 81 ; Salting Bequest, 233 ; 

Signature, 83 
Dobson, William — Port., 209 
Dodd, Daniel — Groups painted by, 133 ; 

Pupil, John Smart, 133 
Donaldson, John — Min. painter, 179 
Donne, Dr., The S^or w— Min., 23 
Dorset, Duke of — Family Ports., 149, 152 ; 

Hoskins, John, port., 233 ; Oliver port., 46 
Dou, General — Port, of Anne Spiering, 213 
Dougan, Mr. John — Port., 167 
Douglas, Marquis of — Port., 207 
Douglass, Marchioness — Port., 213 
Downman, John — Port, of, 163 ; Way, Mr. 

port., 163 
Drake, James — Port., 210 
Drouet — Coll. mins., 201 

Drummond, Mrs. Hay — Port., 169 

Dumont, F. and T. — Mins. by, 19, 201, 202, 

Dyce, W. — Mins. and drawings, 186 

Dycle, Alex.— Port., 66 

Dyke, Lt.-Col.— Port., i63 

D>'sart, Countess of — Port., 54 

Dvsart, Earl of — Port., 213 

Dysart, Earl of, Ham House Col). — Family 
Ports., 236 ; Granges, D. des, 92 ; Hoskins, 
J., 49; Oliver, I., 40; Wood, W., 172 

Edinburgh Univ. Lib.— N. Hiiliard MS., 26 

Edward VI, Portraits of— Holbein (att.), 15 ; 
Shute, John, 36 ; Streetes, Gwidirn (att.), 18 

Elizabeth, Queen — Gold Mints in Scotland, 
29 ; Great Seal, 2nd, des. and engr. by N. 
Hiiliard, 24 ; Hiiliard, N., portraits, 24, 
2^, 30, 33 ; Oliver, 1., portrait, 38 ; 
Prayer Book, 30 ; Unknown Artist, 
portrait, 18 

Elizabeth, Princess — Litho., 171 

Elliott, Sir Thomas— Sketch, 141 

Enc;lehcart, Gen. — .\ugiista,' Princess, 124; 
Characteristics, 104, 126, 127, 129 ; Copies 
of Mins., 163 ; Death and burial, 126 ; Fee- 
books, 123, 124; Fisher, Anne, 128; 
Fisher, Frances, 128 ; Forged Mins., 220, 
221 ; George III, 123, 124 ; Life and 
Family History, 125, 126 ; Notable 
Sitters, 123 ; Pigments use<l, 249, 251 ; 
Pupil of G. Barret, 125 ; Pupils, 129 ; 
Reynolds, Sir J., 125, 126, 129 ; Royal 
Painter, 116 ; Salting Bequest Mins., 233 ; 
Signature, 127; Sussex, Duke of, 125I; 
Trick of Mary Meyer, 178 ; Wales, Princ* 
of, 124 ; Wales, Princess Dowager of, 124 ; 
Wurtemburg, Duchess of, 125 

Englehcart, H. — Archit. Draughtsman, 

Engleheart, John Cox Dillman — Draughts- 
manship, 129 ; Life, 129 ; Pupil of G. 
Engleheart, 129 ; Sheridan portrait, 129 

Engleheart, N. and G., 130 

Engleheart, Thomas — Wax Ports., 125 

Egley — Min. painter, 186 

Essex, Earl of. Port, of — Liebens, J., 
214 ; Oliver, I., 46 I' 

Essex, The Countess of — Port., 40 

Essex, William — Academy, Royal, 
Royal Painter and Enameller, 
Treatise on Enamel Painting, 198 ; 
Victoria, Queen, port., 199 

Evans — Engraving of Min., 169 

Evans, Mrs.— Port., 166 

Evel>Ti — Clei,-n Family, 83 

Evelyn, John, Diary, 50 

E.xchequer Accounts— S. Cooper Stipend'as 
Royal Limner, 63' 

Exeter, 4th Earl of — Port., 61 

Exeter, Lady — Port., 61 

Exeter, Marquess, Coll. — Coll., 236 ; Dixon, 
N., 83 ; Hoskins, J., 54 ; Oliver, I., 39, 41 ; 
Oliver, P., 45 ; Three V'ouths portrait, 5 

Faber, John — .\th!one. Lord, 210 ; Charles I, 
210, 212 ; Drawings, 215 ; Dutch Ad- 
mirals, 210 ; English Visit, 213 ; Hill, 
General, 210 ; Mary II, 210 ; Mezzotint 
Engravers, 210 ; Rooke, Sir George, 210 


198 ; 



Saxony, King of, 211 ; William III, 211 ; 
Wishart, Sir James, 210 

Faber, John (jiin.) — Addison, Joseph, 211 ; 
George I, 2n ; George II, 211 ; Mezzo- 
tint Engraver, 210 

Faithome, William — Charles II (att.), 2ir, 
214 ; Pencil Drawings, 206 ; Reresby, Sir 
John, 211 ; Signature, 89 

Faraday, Michael — Religion, 136 

Farqniiar, Miss Helen, 28 

Farrington, Joseph — Letter from O. Hura- 
phrv, 137 

Featherstonhangh, Mr. — Port., 140 

Fenwick — Port., 163 

ffoulkfs, Miss, Coll. — Mins., 142 

Fif^ld, Robert — Mins., 261 

Figdor, Doktor— Fiiger Mins., 200, 240 

Finland — Coll. of Mons. Sinebr>-choff, 239 

Finney, Samuel — Enamel, 196 

Fisher, Anne— Port., 128 

Fisher, A. G. — Drawings, 153 

Fisher, Frances — Port., 128 

Fitzgerald, Lord Edward, 162 

Fitzherbert, Mr. — Port., 146 

Fitzherbert, Mrs. — Ports., 108 

Flatman, Thomas — .\bilitv, 80 ; Career, 8g, 
90 ; Gregory, E., 90 ; Port, of by O. 
Humphry, 180 ; Pupil C. Beale, 93 ; 
Salting Bequest, 233 ; Signature, 91 ; 
Simpson, Chris., 98 

Fleetwood, George — Port., 95 

Fletcher, Mr.^Port., 167 

Fliccius, Gerlack — Mins., 17 

Florence — Collections in the Uffizi and Pitti 
Palaces, 240 

Fothergill, Dr. — Port., 256 

Foster, Charles — Drawings, 211 

Foster, Thomas— Bultecl Family, 210; 
Characteristics of Mins., 209 ; Crofts, 
General, 210 ; Drake, James, 210 ; Draw- 
ings, 215 ; Gloucester, Duke of, 210 ; 
Halifax, Lord, 210 ; Hay, Dr. and Mrs., 
210 ; Queen Anne's Son, 210 ; Monmouth, 
Duke of, 210 ; Plumbago Mins., 205, 206 ; 
Scott, Lord H., 210 ; Tracy, Viscountess, 
208, 209 ; William III., 210 

Foster, J. J. — Book on S. Cooper, 49, 65, 77 

Fouldstone, Miss^Port., 163 

Fragonard, Mine. — Mins. by, 203 

Fragonard — Characteristics of Mins., 203 ; 
Child with Fair Hair, The, 203 ; Colls, 
of Mins. by, 2or ; Ivory for Mins., 203 

Francis I — Cajsar " De Bcllo Gallico," port., 
9 ; Cosway, Mrs., iii, 113 ; Janet, Mins., 
241 ; Treaty Port., 5, 6, 10 

Franklin, B. — Letter to West, 258 

Franz, Arnold — Port., 16 

Eraser, James — -Mins. by, 255 

Fraser, Stuart M. — Port., ifij 

Frederick III of Denmark, 193 

Frederick V, Elector Palatine — Port, of by 
Cooper, A.. 74, 7s ; Gerbier, B., 85 

Freeman George — Mins., 261 

Fiiger — Col . of Mins. by, 20, 200, 240 

Gainsborough and O. Humphry, 149 

Gallic Wars MS. — Preu.x de Marignan Por- 
traits, 9 

Gambier, Mr. — Port., 146 

Gamett, Nelly — Port., 140 

George I. — Port., 2ii 

George II. — Port., 2H 

George III. — Enamellers J. Meyer and H. 
Bone, 196, 197 ; Port., 123, 124 

George IV.— Cosway, R. (when Regent), 106, 
108 ; Ennmeller, H. Bone, 197 ; Grimaldi, 
William, Min. painter, 179 ; Russell, John 
(when Regent), 176 

Gerbier, Sir Balthazar — Buckingham, Duke 
of, 85 ; Characteristics of Mins., 85 ; 
Charles I. when Prince, 85 ; Frederick V., 
85 ; Gentleman, Name UnknowTi, 85 ; 
Gloucester, Henr)% Duke of, 85 ; Maurice, 
Prince of Orange and Nassau, 85, 98 ; 
Royal .'\rehitect and Painter, 85 ; Swedish 
Diplomatist, 85 

Gennantown, U.S.A. — Flag with Washing- 
ton's portrait, 257 

Gibson, Richard— Carnarvon, Lady, 89 ; 
Carr, Lady Anne, 89 ; Daughters, 89 ; Ogle 
Lord, 89 ; Instruction to Queen Anne and 
Queen Mary, 87 ; Self-Portrait, 87 

Gibson, Susan Penelope (Mrs. Rosse) — 
Identification, 87, 88 ; KneUer, Sir G., 86 ; 
Min. attrib. to, 87, 88 

Gibson, William — Pupil of Lely, 87 

Gillberg — Mins. by, 20, 201 

Gilpin, Ma.3ter W. — Port., 165 

Gheeraerts, Marcus — Daughter, 38 

Godfrey, Sir E. B., 49 

Goltzius, Hendrick— .Min. of Robert Earl of 
Leicester, 213 ; Port., 214 

Goodridge, Miss — Mins., 261 

Goodwood Collection, s^-^Richmond, Duke of 

Gordon, Misses — Port., 170 

Gosford, Lord— Port., 69 

Gothenburg National Museum, 78, 239 

Gould, Mr. George — Min. Coll., 242 

Goulding, Mr. R. — Infonnation re Cooper, 
66, 67 ; Dixon, N., 81, 83 ; Gibson, S. P., 
87 ; Granges, D. des, 91 ; Lens, B., 99, 
100, loi ; Welbeck Abbey Coll., 20, 238 

Glennies, Afr. — Port., 161 

Gloucester, Duke of — Port., Ss, 210 

Gloucester, H.R.H. Duke of, 170 

Glover, George — Plumbago Drawings, 213 

Grafton, Duke of — Port., 83 

Graham, Mr. — Inscription, 225 

Graham, Col. — Port., 180 

Graham, Col., of Netherby— Port., 68 

Graham, Richard — Art cf Painting, J. Hos- 
kins, 53 ; Account Emineitt Painters, S. 
Cooper, 58, 66 

Granges, David des — Charles II., 91 ; Colls, 
containing Mins. by, 92 ; Jones, Inigo, 92 ; 
Life, 92 ; Oil portraits, 92 ; Royal Limner, 
91 ; Signature, 92 

Gratz, Rebecca — Port., 25s 

Greenhill — Pencil drawings, 206 ; Pupil of 
Sir P. Lelv, 80 

Greenwich Hospital — Mins., 153 

Oregon,', Capt.— Sketch, 141 

Gregory, E. — Port., 90 

Grey, Lady S. — Litho., 171 

Grey de Ruthyn, fjjrd — Port., 207 

Gribelin — Enamellcr, 189 

Grignan, Comte de — Port., 192 



Grimal.ii, William — Enameller, 179 

Grimani, Cardinal — Picture, 5, 6 

Gucrin — Mins., 19, 201, 242 

Gustavus Adolphus — Port. 76 

Gwydyr, Lord — Port., 179 

Gwyn, Nell — Davis, Moll, hatred of, 55 ; 

Port., 213 
Halifa.x, Lord — Port., 3 10 
Hall, John, Engraver, 117 
Hall, P. A. — Characteristii;s of Mins., 203 ; 

Colls, of Mins., 200, 242 ; Poto(;ki, Coun- 
tess S iphie, Min. by, 202 
Ham House Coll., see Dysart, Earl of 
Hamilton, ^^a^quess of— Min. of Mary 

Queen of Scots, 97 
Hamilton of D.ilzell, Lord — Port., 213 
Hamilton, Sir W. — Enamel port., 199 
Hammond, Lady — Port, of Capt. Hood, 169 
Harcourt 'Collection — Elizabieth, Queen, 

port., 18, 35 ; Sydney, Lady Mary, 35 
Hardie, Martin — Norgate Treatise on The 

Art of Limning, 26, 27 
Harewood, Earl of. Coll., 153 
Harleian MSS., British Mus. — Portraits 

contained in, 8', 9*, 85 
Harlcy, Edward, Lord — Purchase Crosse 

Coll. of Mins., 97 
Hart, Mr. C. Henry — American Min. Paint- 
ers, 258 
Hartwell, Lady — Port., 169 
Hastings, Lord — Naseby Jewel, 191 
Hatfield — ^Enameller, 197 
Hatfield Papers — Letters of N. HiUiard, 32 
Hawke, Lord — Sketch, 141 
Hawkins, Rev. W. Bcntinck L., Coll. — 

Enamels bequest, 198 ; Holbein, Hans, 

12 ; Teerlinck, Lavina, 11 
Hay, Dr. and Mrs. — Ports., 210 
Haydocke, Richard — Lomazzo, 25, 26, 35, 38 
Henderson, John — Port., 257 
Henderson, Mrs. Francis — Port., 166 
Henrietta Anne (d. of Charles L) — Port., 209 
Henrietta Maria, Queen — ."^msterdarn Mus. 

port., 5 ; Hoskins, John, 50, 54, 56 ; 

Petitot, Jean, 191 
Henry Vlll. — Anne of C'eves Port., 232 ; 

Rolls of I Pleas : port., 5, 6; Unknown 

Artist port., 18 
Henry, Prince, son of James I., 40 
Herbert, George — Port., 166 
Heriot, G. — James I. jeweller, 92 
Hermitage Gall., Petrograd, Coll., 240 
Hervey-.\ston, Mr. — Port., 150 
Hesselius, Gustav — Son, 259 
Hesselius (jun.) — Student of Peale, 259 
Higginson, Sir George, Coll., 128 
Hill, General — Port., 210 
Hill, J., Min. Painter, 179 
HiUiard, Lawrence — .-Vllusions to, 32, 33 ; 

Characteristics of Mins., 33 ; Hudson, 

Lord, attrib., 21 ; Mins. signed by, 33 ; 

Royai " Limner," 33 ; Treasury payment 

for five ports., 33 
HiUiard, Nicholas — .\len50n. Due d', 80 ; 

Anne of Denmark, Queen, 34 ; Armada 

Jewel, attrib., 28 ; Brandon, Alicia (Mrs. 

HiUiard), 32, 27 ; Characteristics of Mins., 

z£ ; Colours and their preparation, 26 ; 

Croker, John, and his wife, 22 ; Elizabeth, 
Queen, 24, 26, 30 ; Father, Richard, 21, 
27, 232 ; French Court Work, 25 ; Gold 
Mines in Scotland, 29, 31 ; Gojilsmith's 
Craft, Medals, etc., 24, 28 ; Great Seal 
(2nd) of Queen Elizabeth, 24 ; Hudson, 
Lord, attrib., 21 ; Identification of Mins., 
20; Irish Seal design, 24 ; Letter re son to 
the Earl of Salisbury, 32 ; Marriages, 27 ; 
Morgan Collection, 241 ; Pupils, 35, 38 ; 
Repute, 23 ; Royal " Limner," 24, 25 ; 
Self-portraits, 20, 22, 28, 34, 232 ; Somer- 
set, Edward Seymour, Duke of, 20, 28 ; 
Treatise on Min. Painting, 25, 26 ; WiM 
and Legacies, 28 

Ililliard, Richard — Port., 2t, 27, 232 

Hobbes, Thomas — Port., 58 

Hobson, Mr. — Chinese Servant's port., 167 

Hoccleve's MS — Chaucer's port., 8 

Hodgkins, E. M., Coll.— HiUiard, N., 22; 
Smart, J., 134, 142 

Hodgitts, Mr.— Port., 158 

Hoffman, Matilda — Port., 255 

Hoin — Mins., 204 

Holbein, Hans — Abergavenny, Baron, 14 ; 
Anne of Cleves, 232 ; Audley, Lady, 13 ; 
Bur, Leonard, 10 ; Catherine Howard, 
Queen, 10, 12, 13 ; Catherine Parr, Queen, 
12; Characteristics of Mins., 15, 16; 
English Visits, n ; Forgeries, 15 ; Henry 
VIII., 12 ; Howard, Lady Mary, 13 ; 
Katherine of .dragon. Queen, 12 ; Morgaa 
Collection of Mins., 241 ; Pemberton, Mrs., 
12, 241 ; Self-portraits, 10, 12 ; Resky- 
meer, 13 ; Seymour, Lady Jane, ii, 12 ; 
Sotheby Collection of Mins. by, 238 ; 
Suffolk, Duke of, 13, 14 ; Suffolk, Duchess 
of, 12 ; Suffolk, Henry Brandon, Duke of, 
13; Touched-up Ports., 16; Youth, 
friend of Sir T. More, 13, 14 ; Wallace Col- 
lection of Mins., 234 ; Windsor Castle 
Coll., 233 

Holland — Oil Min. Painters, 240 

Holland, Queen — Collection by Mr. Lugts, 
239]; Cooper, A., 76, 77 ; Cooper, S., 60 ; 
Gerbier, B., 85, 98 ; Holbein, H., 13, 14 ; 
Oliver, I., 41 ; Value of Collection, 239 

Holland, Mrs. — Port., 40 

Holies, Sir F.— Port., 64 

Holmes — Min. of Lord Byron, 186 

Holmes, Miss Maria — Port., 167 

Holmes, Rev., Sub-dean Chapel Royal — 
Port., 162 

Holmes, Sir Richard — N. HiUiard and the 
Goldsmith's Craft, 24 

Holt, Henry — Queen Christina port., 78 

Holyrood Castle — Scottish Kings' Portraits 
in Gallerv', 32 

Hone, Horace, Enameller and Min. Painter, 
179, 196 

Hone, Nathaniel — " Conjuror, The," paint- 
ing. 177 ; Enameller, 196 ; Personal Ex- 
hibition of Mins., 177 ; Pupil J. Plott, 198 ; 
Quarrel with R.A., 177 ; Salting Bequest 
Min., 233 

Hood, Capt. — Port., 169 

Hood, Lord — Grandson's port., 169 

Hopkinsoa, Francis — Dr. Conwell, 260 



Hopkinson, Thomas — " Hail Columbia," 

Horncbolt, Luke and Susanna — Ports., 11, 17 

Hcskins, John — Bequest in S. Cooper's V\'i!l, 
65 ; Charles I., 50, 54; Charles II. (as a 
boy), 54 ; Characteristics, 53, 54, 57 ; 
Coll. of Mins., 49, 54, 238, 241 ; Contem- 
poraries, allusions to, 51, 52 ; Conway, 
Viscount, 57 ; Davis, Moll, 55 ; Dorset, 
Earl of, 233 ; Dysart, Catherine Bruce, 
Countess of, 54 ; Gentleman, Name Un- 
known, 57 ; Great Seal of Charles I., 
drawings, 51 ; Henrietta Maria, Queen, 50, 
54i 55. 56 ; Howard, Lady Catherine, 233 ; 
Life,5i ; Lucas, Sir Charles, 55 ; Maynard, 
Sir John, 50, 57 ; Pembroke, Mary Sidney, 
Countess of, 57 ; Pupils. 51,58; Rudyard, 
Sir Benjamin, 50 ; Self-portrait, Buc- 
cleuch Coll., 52; Signature, 51, 52, 53; 
Southampton, Rachel de Ruvigny, 
Countess of, 56 ; Touched-up Mins., 57 ; 
Will and bequest to son, 48 

Hoskins, John (jun.) — Benvick, Duke of, 48 : 
Dysart Coll. Mins., 49 ; Godfrey, Sir 
Edmund Ber y, 49 ; James II., 47, 48 ; 
Roos, Lord, 52, 53 ; Self-port., 52 ; 
Signature, 51, 52, 53 

Hothficid, Lord, Collection — Humphn.-, O., 
153 ; Import, of Coll., 236 ; Smart, J., 140 

Howard Castle — Coll. of Lord Carlisle, 236 

Howard, Lady Catherine — Port., 233 

Howard, Lady Mary — Port., 13 

Hoppner — Port, of Mrs. George Jerning- 
ham, 172, 173 

Howes, John — Enameller, 196 

Hudson, Thomas — R. Cosway, 108 

Hummell, Mr. — Port., 169 

Humphry, Ozias — Academy, Royal, mem- 
ber, 151 ; Artistic training and capabili- 
tics,i48, 152 ; Boy, Name Unknown, 150 ; 
Characteristics of Mins., 105, 147, 153-5 ; 
Collections of Mins. by, 153, 233 ; Copies 
of Oil Paintings, 148, 152 ; Cosway, 
Richard, criticism of, 104 ; Crayon work, 

151, 152 ; Dillon of Ditchley, Viscount, 
150 ; Documents and Correspondence, 
152 ; Fla.xman, John, 180 ; Friendships, 
149 ; Hervey-Aston, Mr., 150 ; Indian 
Visit, 137, 138, 149, 151 ; Italian Visit, 
149 ; Large-sized Mins., 147 ; Life, 148, 
149, 151; Montrose, Duke of, 150; 
Nesbitt, Mrs., 150; Oil Paintings, 138, 

152, 153 ; Ozias Humphry, by G. C. 
Williamson, 152 ; Pupil of S. Collins, 148, 
181 ; Reynolds, Sir Joshua, interview 
with, 148 ; Royal Painter, 149 ; Salting 
Bequest Mins., 233 ; Sketches from Mins., 
147 ; Sparkes, Mr., 163 ; Unfinished 
Mins., 152 ; Waldegrave, Ladies (lawsuit 
picture), 151 

Hunsdnn, Lord — Port., 21 

Huntington v. Lewis and Simmons — Law- 
suit rf Picture, 151 

Hunter, J. H. and J. F. C. — Enamels for the 
Earl of Dartrey, 195 

Hyde, Mrs.— Port., 161 

Ickworth I'ark Coll. of the Marquess of Bris- 
tol — Humphry, 0., 153 ; Leas, B., 66, loi 

Incorporated Society of Artists — ]oba 
Shute, 133 

Ireland — National Gallery Mins., 234 ; Seal 
design by N. Hilliard, 24 

Isabey, J. B.— Characteristics of Mins., 201 ; 
King of Rome as a Child, 180 ; Mins. of 
Historical Interest, 201 ; Mins. by, 19, 242 

Italy — Miniature Coll., 240 ; Oil Miniature 
Painters, 240 

Jackson — Port, of S. Cooper, 67 

Jackson, Robert — Port., 164, 168 

Jacques — Mins. by, 204 

James I. — Browuckhurst, .Arthur Van, 
Paintings, 31 ; Hilliard, N., Licence |for 
Royal Drawings, etc., 24, 25 ; Jeweller, 
George Heriot, 92 

James II. — Brownckhurst, A. Van, port., 
32 ; Cooper, Ale.v., 75 ; Cooper, S., as 
Duke of York, 68 ; Elizabeth, Queen, 
Prayer Book, 30 ; White, R., 209 

Janet-Morgan Coll., 241 

Jean, Paul — Min. by, 181, 233 

Jefferies, Mr. — Port., 169 

Jemingham, Frances, Lady — Letter, 172 

Jemingham, Mrs. George, 172, 173 

Jemingham, Sir Henry — Holbein's Min. of 
Lady Mary Howard, 13 

Jersey, Earl of, Coll., 153 

Johnson, Dr. — Enamel Port., 199 ; Friend- 
ship with O. Humphry, 149 ; Sketch, 141 

Johnston, Miss — Port., 169 

Jones Collection — French Mins., 233 

Jones, Inigo — Enamel port, of, 199 ; Port, 
of, by David des Granges, 92 

Jones, Mr. — Port., 146 

Jones, Mrs. — Port., 166 

Jones Bequest — Port., 57 

Jonson, Ben — Copy of head in min., 158 

Josephine, Empress — Isabey, pcirt., 201 ; 
Quaglia, Min. Painter, 204 

Joseph, Mr., Coll. — Holbein's port, of Queen 
Katherinc of Aragon, 12 

Kaiser I-riedrick Mus., Gennany — Port, by 
A. Cooper, 74 

Katherine of Aragon, Queen — Port., 12 

Kaufimann, Angelica — Quarrel of N. Hone 
and the K..\., 177 

Keats— Port., 186 

Keighly, Mr. — Port., 167 

Kelly, Mr. — Port., 161, 165 

Kennedy, Mr. — Bucclcuch Coll., 20, 235 ; 
Pep>-s Diary, reference to "Jacke" 
Hoskins, 52 

Kensington Museum, South, Collection — 
Beauchainp Coll. on Loan, 235 ; Hoskins' 
Port, of James II, 47, 48 ; Humphry, 0., 
153; Oliver Mins., 46 ; Wood, W., 172 

Keppel, Col. — Port, of, 163 

Keppel, Hon. Charlotte A., :66 

Ker, Mrs.— Port., 118 

Kerby, John — Min., 158 

Kew Palace Gardens — Design, 125 

Kilmorev, Earl of — Wife, 128 

King, H.M., ste Royal Coll. 

King, Dr. John, Bishop of London, 35 

King, Miss — Port., 165 

Kingston Lacv Coll. — Enamels, 197 

Kirk, Smith M.— Port., 146 



Kneller, Sir G.— Port., 86 

Knipe, Miss — Port., i66 

KniRht, Miss — Crayon Port., 163 

Kiiolc i'ark — Ports., 148, 153 

Knowsley, Derby Coll., 198 

Knox, John — Ports., 257 

Knox, Miss Letitia — Port., 167 

Kratzor, Nicholas — Port., 16 

Lake, Sir Bibye — Port., 207 

Lambton, Miss Fanny — Port., 159 

Lauibton Children — Ports., 159, i56 

Laurent — Pupil of Augustin, 204 

Lawrell, Mrs. C. J. Pakenham, 112 

Lawrence, Col. — Port., 163 

Lawrence, Sir Thomas, 87 

Lee, Mrs., Hartwell House Coll. — David des 

Granges' port, of Charles IL, 91 
Leeds, Duchess of — Queen Elizabeth's port., 

Legare, Gilles — Frame for enamel, 98 
Lehman Family — Flag with Washington's 

Port., 257 
Leicester, Duke of — Brother, 162 
Leicester, Robert, Earl of — Port., 213 
Lely, Sir Peter — Bealc, Mary, 93 ; Pencil 
•Drawings, 206 ; Pupils, 80, 87 
Lemberger, Book on Scandinavian Mins., 

77, 78 
Lemon, Margaret— Port., 71 
Lemon, Sir William — Port., 161 
Lemon, Esme, Earl of, 31 
Lens, Andrew Benjamin — -Miniature Painter, 

100 ; Self-portraits and family, loi ; 

Tonson, Jacob, loi 
Lens, Bernard (Enameller) — Collections on 

Divinity, MS., 99 ; Enamel Painter, 99 
Lens, Bernard (Mezzotint Engraver) — 

Drawing School, 99 
Lens, Bernard fMiuiature Painter) — Copies 

of ports., 66, 100, loi ; Drawing Book 

published by, 100 ; Drawing Master, 

pupils, 99, 100 ; Ivorj', use of, loi, 220 ; 

Mary Queen of Scots, loi ; Morgan Coll., 

241 ; Oxford, Edward Harley, 2nd Earl of, 

min. for, 100 ; Pope, Alexander, 86 
Lens, Peter Paul — Miniature Painter, 100 ; 

Mother, port, of, loi ; Oil Paintings, 

102 ; Signature, 102 
Lens MS. — Lawrence Crosse, 96 
Lester, Sir John — Port., 116 
Lethbridge,W. S. — Academy School Student, 

179 ; Wolcot, Dr. (Peter Pindar), 179 
Liddell, Mrs. Thomas — Min., 27 
Liebens, Jan — Port, of the Earl of Essex, 

213. 214 
Limoges — Ename'lers, 189 
Lindsell, Mrs. — Port., 165 
Linlev, Mrs. — Daughter married Sheridan, 

Liotard — Enameller, 194 
L'lsle, Lord de — Frame and inscription for 

portrait of R. Hilliard, 27 
Lockey, Nicholas — Attributed Miniatures, 

35 ; Bishop of London, John King, 35 ; 

Sydney, Lady Mary, attributed, 18 
Lockey, Rowland — Miniatures attributed, 

35 ; More, Sir Thomas, Family Group, 35 ; 

Pupil of N. Hilliard, 35 

Loggan, David— Attributed portrait, 214 ; 
Characteristics, 207, 208 ; Charles 11., 6, 
207 ; Colls, of Portraits by, 207 ; Douglas, 
James, Marquis of, 207 ; Drawings, 215 ; 
English Visit, 213 ; Engraver to the Uni- 
versities, 207 ; Grey de Ruthyn, L'jrd, 207 ; 
Lake, Sir Bibye, 207 ; Life, 206 ; Mazarin, 
Cardinal, 207 ; Oxonia Illustrata and 
Cambrigia Illustrata, 207 ; Perwick, Mrs., 
207 ; Plumbago Miniatures, 205, 206 ; 
Pupil R. White, 209 ; Somerset, 6th 
Duke of, 207, 208 

Lomazzo — Translation of by R. Haydocke, 25 

Louis XHI. — Enamelled watches, 189 

Louis XIV. — Enameilers, J. Petitot and J. 
Bordier, 191 ; Portrait, 5, 192 

Louis XVIII. — Ports., 201 

Loundon, John, Earl of — Port., 62, 71 

Louisa, Princess — Pupil of B. Lens, 99 

Louvre — Miniature Coll., 239 ; Petite enam- 
els, 239; Romano, Giulio, cartoons, no 

Lovell of Tichmarsh, Lord, 8 

Lucas, Sir Charles — Port., 55 

Lugt, M. Fritz— Book on the Queen of 
Holland's Collection, 77, 239 

Lundens — Mins. by, 20, 204 

Lushington, Miss^Litho., 171 

Luttercll, Edward — Study of Archbishop 
Plunket, 214 

Lydgate, John — Port., 9 

Madresfield Court — Mins. by David des 
Granges, 92 

Malbone — Characteristics of Miniatures, 255; 
Gratz, Rebecca, 255 ; Hoffmann, Matilda, 
255 ; Life, 254 

Manini, Gaetano — Enameller, 198 

Mann, Mr. — Port., 166 

Manners, Charles — Cooper's Portrait of Lady 
Exeter, 63 

.Maancre Family — Ports, at Belvoir, 235 

Mansfield, Earl of — Enamel Port., 199 

Maquer, Mr. — Port., 146 

Marie Antoinette, Queen, Portraits of — 
Isabey, 201 ; Sergent, 200 

Marie Louise, Empress — Port., 201 

Marlborough, Duchess of — Port. 97 

Marlborough, Duke of— Enamel to com- 
memorate \'ictories, bv Boit, 194 

Marshall-Hall, Sir Edward — Coll., 142, 239 

Mary, Princess — Pupil for drawing of B. 
Lens, 99 

Marj-, Queen of Scots, Portraits — Crosse, L., 
97 ; Lens, B., loi 

Mar>' of Modena — Port., S4 

Mary II., Queeu — Instniction given by R. 
Gibson, 87 ; Portrait of, by J. Faber, 210 

Masse — EnameUer, 194 

Maurice of Orange, P'rincc — Port., 85, 98 

May, Sir Thomas — -Port., 69 

Maverne, Turquet de — Help given to J. 
Petitot and Bordier, 190 

Maynard, Sir John — Port., 50, 57 

Maynooth Collection — Min., 162 

Mazarin, Cardinal — Port., 207 

Meascn, Gilbert Laing — Gold Mines in Scot- 
land, 31 

Menage, Miss — Port., 168 

Mercer, Gen. — Port., 258 



Mercs, Francis — R. Lockey, 35 

Meyer, Constance — Mins., 204 

Meyer, Jeremiah — Characteristics, 178 ; 
Daughter Man,-, 178 ; Enaineller to 
George III., 196 ; Marriape of R. Cosway, 
119 ; Pupil, Richard Collins, 198 ; Pupil 
of Zincke, 178 ; Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 
178 ; Royal Painter, 178 

Middleton, Mrs.— Port., 70 

Miers, John — Port., 146 

Miller, Mrs.— Port., 168 

Miller-Gibson-Culluin, Mr. Gery — Beale, 
Mary, 95, 96 ; Cooper, S., port, of G. 
Fleetwood, 95 

Milton, John — Port., 191 

Miniature Painters, Royal Society of, 251,252 

Minley Manor, see Currie 

Monmouth. James, Duke of — Cooper, S., 
portrait, 62, 69, 71 ; Dukedom, 6 ; Ross, 
Mrs., portrait as a Child, 88 ; Son's por- 
trait, 210 ; White, Robert, 209 

Montagu, 2nd Viscount — Son's port., 39, 

Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley— Port., 177 

Montrose, Duke of — Port., 150 

Monveron, L'Abbe de — Port., 214 

Morf, Sir Thomas— Family Group port., 35 ; 
Friend's port., 13, 14 

Morgan, J. Pierpont, Collection — Armada 
Jewel, 28 ; Augustin, 204, 241, 242 ; Betts, 
T., attributed, 36 ; Collection, 93 ; Clouet, 
Jean, 10 ; Cooper, Samuel, 63, 67, 71, 241 ; 
Cosway, Richard, 105, 106, 112 ; Crosse, 

241 ; Di.xon, N., 81, 83, 241 ; Dumont, 

242 ; Engleheart, G., 128 ; Fragonard, 
sketch, 203 ; Gcrbier, B., 85, 242 ; Hall, 
P. A., 200, 202, 242 ; Hilliard, L., 33* ; 
Hilliard, N., 25, 241 ; Holbein, H., 12, 241 ; 
Holbein Period Miniature, 16 ; Hoskins, J., 
48, 50, 56, 57, 241 ; Humphry, O., 153 ; 
Importance of Collection, 241 ; Isabey, 
242 ; Janet, 241 ; Lens, B., 241 ; Oliver, 
P., 45, 241 ; Petitot Enamels, 190 ; 
Petitot, J. L., 192, 193, 241 ; Plimer, A., 
118, 241 ; Prieur, P., 193 ; Rossetti, D. G. 
241 ; Sergent, 200 ; Smart, J., 140 ; Spen- 
cer, 241 ; Teerlinck, Lavina, 11' ; Turnbull, 
J., 258 

Momington, Lord — Port., 166. 

Mortlake Royal Tapostr>' Works, 83 

Morton, Earl of— Gold Mines in Scotland,'3i 

Moser, Mary — Relations with R .Cosway, 115 

Moscr, Michael — Jeweller and Medallist, 196 

Mottisfont Abbey — Port., 92 

Mundcn, Mr. — Port., 167 

Murray, Capt. H. W.— Collection, 105, 239 

Myd<ireton, Jane — Port., 72 

Nanteuil, R. — Plumbago port, of Abb<S dc 

Monveron, 214 
Napoleon I. — Port., 201 
Naseby Jewel, 191 
Nesbitt, Mrs.— Port., 150 
New York — Min. Collections, 242 
Newcastle, Duke of — Dixon, N., mortgage of 

mins. to, 81 ; Port, of, by L. Crosse, 97 
Newcastle, Duke of, 95 
Newdigale — Newdigate Family, Arbury 

Collection, 102 

Newland, Abraham — Bank, Chief Cashier 
161 ; Port, of, by W. Wood, 161, 165 

Ne\vman — Plimer's pigments, 250 

Newton, Sir Williaui — Ivory Surface for 
Miniatures, 186 ; Royal Painter, 185 

Nice — Forged Miniatures, 220, 221 

Nightingale, Col. — Port., 161 

NincUenth Century — Alexander Coof>er, 75 

Nixon, James — Miniature painter, 179 ; 
Salting Bequest Mins., 233 

Nollekens, Sculptor — Port., 143 

Norgate, Edward — The Art of Limning, 26 

Nonnan, Dr. Philip — Article on N. Hilliard 
24, 25, 27 

Nonnan, Lady Elizabeth — Son, Port., 162 

North, Lord — Collection, s« Wroxton Abbey 

Northcote — Port, of, 256 

Northumberland, Duke of, 85 

North wick, ist Lord — Wife, 118 

Niiimsmaiic Chronicle — " Nicholas Hilliard 
Embosser of Metals in Gold," by Miss H. 
Farquhar, 28 

Nuneham, Coll. of Viscount Harcourt, 238 

Oakeley, Lady — Port, of, by J. Smart, T40 

Occleve — Port, in MS., 8 

Oglander, Lady — Port., 146 

Ogle, Lord— Port., 89 

Oliver, Isaac — Anne of Denmark, Queen, 40 ; 
Characteristics, 37, 39. 45 46 ; Christ, 
Entombment of, 41 ; Clench, Sir John, 41!; 
Death, 38 ; Dorset, Lord, 46 ; Elizabeth, 
Queen, 38 ; Essex, Earl of. Port., 46 ; 
Essex, Countess of, 40 ; French Origin, 37, 
38 ; Hair in Portraits, treatment of, 46 ; 
Henrv, Prince, son of James I. (as a Baby), 
40 ; Holland, Mrs.,40 ; London, Residence 
in, 38 ; Marriage at Rouen, 38 ; Montagu, 
2nd Viscount, son's portraits, 39, 46 ; 
Morgan Collection, 241 ; Oil Portraits 
attributed, 39 ; Pupil of N. Hilliard, 35, 
38 ; Salting Bequest, 233 ; Si<Iney, Sir 
Philip, 45 ; Signature, 41 ; Sotheby Col- 
lection, 238 ; Talbot, Sir Anmdel, 41 

Oliver, Mrs. — Port., blacklead, 42 

Oliver Peter — Baltimore, George Calvert, 
Baron, 44 ; Bohemia, Queen of, 45 
Characteristics, 37, 43, 45 ; Charles I., 45 ; 
Copies of Old Masters, 43, 45 : P'Sby, Sir 
K. and Lady, Ports., 4.3. 44 ; Haio in por- 
traits, treatment of, 46 ; Life, 42 ; Pala- 
tine, Elector, 44 ; Port, of, in blacklead, 
42 ; Salting Bequest, 233 ; Signature, 43 ; 
Sotheby Collection, 238 ; Vandyck group 
copy, 43 ; Wife and Charles II., 42 

Onne — Frame to Miniature, 208 

Onne, Daniel — Stippled Miniatures, 181 

Oniiond, Earl of — Brother, 162 

Otis, Bass, 261 

Oxford, Edward Ilarley, 2nd Earl of — 
Lens, B., Mins, 100 ; Pupil of B. Lens, 99 

Oxford, New College— Degrees granting, 90 

Oxford University Galleries — Bone, H., 197'; 
Crosse, L., 97 ; Dixon, N., 81 ; Forster 
T., 210 ; Lens, B., 100 

Palatine, Elector, Ports. — Cooper, A., 78 ; 
Oliver, P., 44 

Paris — Forged .Miniatures, 221 ; Louvre, see 
that title 



Parker, Mr. John— Port., 165 

Parsons, Mrs. — Port., 112 

Parson, Messrs. — Miniature by Paolo 
Carrandini, 8.4 

Pass, Crispin van de (elder)— Engraved Port, 
of Queen Elizabeth, by Oliver, 38 ; Port, 
of Hcndrick Goltzius, 214 

Pass, Simon dc — Plumbago Dr., 213, 215 

Pass, William de^Pluinbago Dr., 213 

Pastel Portrait dispute, 247 

Pa ton, David — Drawings by, 213, 215 

Paul, Sir J. D. — Fraud Case of Paul and 
Bates, 168 ; Port., 168 

Peale, Ann — Mins., 260 

Peale, C. Wilson — Artistic Abilities, 259 ; 
Life, 259 ; Taxidermy Work, 259, 260 

Peale, James, 260 

Peale, St. George, 260 

Peale, Raphael, 260 

Peale, Rembrandt, 260 

Peard, Oliver, and R. Conway, 107 

Pemberton, Mrs. — Port., 12, 241 

Pembroke, Countess of — Port., 57 

Penn, William, 75 

Pepys, Samuel— Cooper's Port, of Mrs. 
Pep>-s, 59, 60 ; Davis, Moll, 55 ; Gregory, 
E. H., 90 ; Hoskins, " Jacke," cousin of 
Coouer, 32 ; " Paintings in little," 4 ; 
Portrait, 160, 166 

Percy, A., Ld. High Admiral — Port., 233 

Perrin — Mins. by, 204 
' Peter Pindar," see Wolcot, Dr. 

Penvick, Mrs. — Port., 207, 209 

Pether, Wm. — Plumbago Drawings, 213 " 

Petitot, Jean — .Ability, 19, 190 ; Apprentice- 
ship to Bordicr, 189 ; Charles I., 191 ; 
Drawings by, 193 ; Ecclesiastic, 98 ; 
French Court of Louis XI\'., 191 ; Henri- 
etta Maria, Queen, 191 ; Huguenot Faith, 

191 ; Life, 21, 189, 190, 191 ; Louis XI\'., 
5, 192 ; MS. Journal, 193 ; Mayeme, Tur- 
quet de, 190 ; Morgan Collection, 241 ; 
Richmond and Lennox, Duchess of, 191 ; 
Southampton, Countess of, 190 ; Watch- 
cases enamelled, 190 ; Enamels by, in 
Collections, 193 ; Grignan, Le Comte de, 

192 ; Royal Prince, name unknown, 192 ; 
Study with S. Cooper, 194 

Peirson, Capt. Richard — Port., 170 
Petrograd, Coll. of Mins., 45, 240 
Pevison, Sir R. — Port., 170 
Pfungst, Mr., Coll. — Cooper, S., 71 ; Di.xon, 

N., S3 
Philadelphia, Drexel Coll. — Port, of John 

Knox, 257 
Philip and Mary — Rolls of Pleas port., 5, 6 
Philips, Mrs. Katherine — Verses, 61 
Phipps, Miss Anna — Port., 169 
Phipps, Wathem — Port., 169 
Pigot, Sir Henrv- Wife, 128 
Pinchon — -Pupil of Augustin, 204 
Pinkerton — Medal to commemorate Peace 

with Spain, by N. Hilliard, 28 
Pitt, Hon. Blanche — Min., 112 
Pitts, Mr.— Port., 97 
Pittsburg — ]\riii. C' lle.tion, 242 
Piimer, Andrew — AflBeck Daughters, group, 

122 ; Characteristics, 120, 121, 122 ; Clay- 

ton Family, 122 ; Copies of Miniatures, 
163 ; Cosway, R., 116, 117, 119 ; Daugh- 
ters, 121, 122 ; Forged Miniatures, 220, 
221 ; Group Portraits, 122 ; Ker, Mrs., 
118; Life, 116, 117, 119, 120; Marriage, 
iig ; Morgan Collection, 241 ; Pigments 
used, 249, 250, 251 ; Pupil of R. Cosway, 
1 16; Rebecca, wife of John, ist Lord 
Northwich, 118 ; Rushont, Three Ladies, 
"Three Graces," 122; Salting Bequest 
Mins., 233 ; Simpson, John, Miniature 
Group of Daughters, 122 

Piimer, Nathaniel — Characteristics of Mins., 
120 ; Life, 116, 117, 120 

Plomer, Mr. — Port, of, by J. Smart, 146 

Plott, John — Naturalist Painter, 181 ; Pupil 
of N. Hone, 198 

Plunket, Archbishop — Port., 214 

Poland, John Sobieski, King of — Enamels 
by J. Petitot, 191 

Pomfret, Earl of, loi 

Ponsonby, Gerald — Port., 141 

Pope, Alexander — Cooper, S., Sketch-books, 
etc., owned by Family, 65 ; Enamel Port., 
199 ; Port, of, by Bernard Lens, 86 

Pope, Thomas and William — Portraits, by 
I. Oliver, 39 

Portland, Duke of, Welbeck Abbey Coll. — 
Catalogue of Coll., 238 ; Cooper, S., 66, 72, 
225 ; Cosway, R., 106 ; Crosse, L., 96 ; 
Dixon, N., 81 ; Elizabeth, Queen, Prayer 
Book, 30 ; Flatman, T., 98 ; Gibson, S. P. 
(Mrs. Rosse), 86 ; Hilliard, N., 34 ; Isabey, 
J.B., 180; White, R., 209 

Portrait Gallery, National— Beale's Diary, 
93 ; Humphry-, O., 153 ; Min. Ports., 233 

Portugal — Miniature Colls., 241 

Portugal, Dona Maria, Infanta of, 36 

Potof ki. Countess Sophie, 202 

Pow>-s, Lord, Collection— -Mins., 153 

Prado Museum — Mins., 241 

Prewitt — Pupil of Zincke, 195 

Prieur, Pierre — Castlemaine, Lady, 193 ; 
Charles II., after S. Cooper, 192, 193 ; 
Freilerick III. of Denmark's Children, 193 ; 
Marriage with Petitot's daughter, 193 ; 
Mins. by, 19 ; Poland, King of, 193 ; 
Travels and work abroad, 193 

Privy Seal Book — " Twelve Medals in Gold,' 


Propert, Dr. — Cosway, R., 103 ; Holbein's 

Port, of Jane Seymour, 12 ; Miniatura 

painting Investigation, 103 
Pmd'hon, Pierre — Mins. by, 204 
Quaglia — Min. painter to Empress Josepbino 

20, 204 
Raeburn — -Mins.. 182 
Raleigh, Sir Walter — Port., 235 
Rallard, Mr. — Sketch, 141 
Ramage, John, 261 
Ramsay, Mr. \Villiam — Port., 167 
Ratclitte, Lady— Sketch, 141 
Rawley, .Miss — Port., 146 
Read, ^Ir. — -Port., 146 
Record Office, Public — D. des Granges, 91 
Regrave, Samuel, S. Kensington Museum — 

Port, of James II., 47, 48 
Reeves, Miss — Port., 165 



Regent, George, Prince, see George IV. 

Regimine Principis, De — MS. Brit. Mus., 8 

Reresby, Sir John — Port., 211 

Reskymeer, Mr. — Ports., 13 

Reyiner's " Foedera " — N. Hiliiard, 24* 

Reynolds, Col. — Port., 143 

Reynolds, Sir Joshua — Comparison with G. 
Stuart, 256 ; Copies of Pictures done by 
W. Wood, 158 ; Enamel portrait, 199 ; 
Humphry, O., interview with, 148 ; Port, 
of, by G. Stuart, 256 ; Pupil, J. Meyer, 
178 ; Quarrel of N. Hone and the Royal 
Acad., 177 ; Student, G. Engleheart, 125 

Rich rainily^Mins. of, by R. Hiliiard, 27 

Richardson, J. — Plumbago Dr., 206, 213 

Richmond, George, R.A. — Father, 130 

Richmond, Thomas — Pupil of G. Engle- 
heart, 129 ; Sons, 130 

Richmond and Gordon, Duke of, Coll. at 
Goodwood— Coll., 236 ; Cooper, Samuel, 
Port, of Charles II., 5, 71 

Richmond and Lennox, Duchess of— Port, 
by J. Petitot, 191 

Riggs, Mr.— Port., 166 

Rijks Museum, Amsterdam — Coll., 239 ; 
Cooper, S., 60 ; Faber, J., 210 ; Agerbicr, 
B., 85 ; Granges, D. des, 92 ; Hoskins, J., 
5,55 ; Oliver, P., 45S 

Rivington, Mr. Charles — Port., 166 

Robertson, Ale.xander — Min. Painter, 184 

Robertson, .Andrew — Characteristics of Mins., 
183 ; Life, 182, 184 ; Li/e and I eiters, by 
Miss Emily Robertson, 182 ; Ross, Sir 
William, 184 ; Scene Painting, 183 ; Sec. 
of Soc. of Assoc. Artists in Water Colour, 
171 ; \\'est, Benjamin, 183 

Robertson, .Archibald, 183, 184 

Robertson, Capt. — Port., 163 

Robertson. Miss Emily — Life and Letters of 
Andrew Robertson, 182 

Robertson, Walter and Charles— Min. 
Painters, 179 

Robertson and Miller, 249, 250 

Robinson — Mins. copied by W. Wood, 163 

Roche, Mr. — Port., 146 

Romano, Giulio — Cartoons, no 

Rome — Collections, 241 ; Queen Christina's 
Correspondence, 78 

Rome, King of, as a child, 180 

Romney, George — Friendship with O. Hum- 
phry, 149 ; Newland, A., port, of, 162 ; 
Italian Visit, 149 

Rooke, Sir George — Port., 210 

Roos, Lord — Cooper's Port, of Lady Exeter, 
63 ; Port., 52, 53 

Rosebery, Earl of — Coll. at Montmoro, 237 

Ross, Sir William— Characterislicsof Mins., 
184, 185 ; Ivory used by, 184 ; Pupil of 
A. Robertson, 184 

Rossetti — Min. in Morgan Collection, 241 

Rotlischild Col'c( tions, 193, 238 

Rouen — Capture by the Guises, 38 

Roumani.i — Min. Colls., 241 

RoundcU, Mrs. — Ham House Mins., 237— -Enameller, 194 

Rou\'irr — Mins. by, 204 

Royal Collections of H.M. the King — Bealc, 
C, 95 ; Cooper, S., 69 ; Cosway, R., 104 ; 

Elizabeth, Queen, Prayer Book, 30 ; 

Granges, D. des, 92 ; Holbein, H., 13, 14 ; 

Hoskins, J., 51, 54 ; Oliver, I., 38, 39 ; 

Oliver, P., 43, 45 ; Petitot, J. L., 193 
Rudyard, Sir Benjamin — Port., 50 
Rumbell and Bridge — Frame, 168 
Rushout, Three Ladies, 122 
i<ussel, Antony — Story of Mrs. I'. Oliver and 

Charles II., 42 
Russel, Theodore — Purchase <■/ Paintings 

from Mrs. P. Oliver, 42 
Russell, John, R.A. — Anatomy, Study of, 

131 ; Crayon picture of Miss Knight, 163 ; 

George IV. when Regent, 176 
Russell, Lady William — Eye King Mins., 165 
Russian Collections, 240 
Rutland, Duchess of— -Grandson's Port., i6e 
Rutland, Duke of. Coll., see Belvoir 
Rymer's " Foedera " — N. Hiliiard, 28 
Sackville, Lord — .Mins., 153 
Sadler — Mins. attributed to, 89 ; I'upil of 

Sir Peter Lely, So 
S. .Albans, Duke of — Port, of, by L.Crcsse, 97 
S. .Martins-in-the-Ficlds — Register of death 

of N. Hiliiard, 23 
Saint Menin — Port. Engr. and Painter, 261 
Salting Bequest — Binninck, S., 232 ; Bogle, 

233 ; Cooper, S., 233 ; Cosway, 233 ; 

Crosse, 233 ; Dixon, 233 ; Engleheart, 

233 ; Flatman, 233 ; Hiliiard, N., 20, 21*, 

232 ; Hiliiard, R., 27 ; Holbein, H., 12 

232 ; Hoskins J., 233 ; Humphry, O., 

233 ; Jean, 233 ; Nixon, 233 ; Oliver, I., 
41, 233 ; Oliver, P., 233 ; Plimer, 233 ; 
Smart, J., 134, 233 ; Teerlinck, Lavinia, 
18, 233 

Salisbury, Earl of — -Letter fr. N. Hiliiard, 38 
Salisbury Lectionariura — Port., 8 
Sampson, Mrs. — Port., 162 
Sanderson, William— Cfa^Ate, Gibson, R., 

port, by, 87 ; Granges, D. des, 92 ; Hot- 
kins, Father and Son, 47, 49 
Sandwich, Earl of — Port., 233 
Santa Barbara — Mins., 242 
Sartoris, Mrs. — Min., 27 
Saxony, King of — Port., 211 
Scott, Dr. John — Marriage with L. Plimer, 

Scott, Henrietta, Duchess of Portland — 

Port., 106 
Scott, Lord Henry — Port., 210 
Scouler — Montague, Lady Mary Wortl«y, 

177 ; Small Mins. by, 177 
Segar, Francis and V\ illiam — Mins. by, 17 ; 

Queen Elizabeth Port., attrib., 18, 35 
Sergent — Queen Marie Antoinette, 200 
Severn — Min. of Keats, 186 
Se>Tnour, Lady Frances — Daughter, 161 
Seymour, Lady Jane — Port., 12 
Shaftesbur>', Earl of— Port., 71, 74 
" Shaick Emaun'Bux " — Port., 166 
Shaw, Dr. — Denisalions and Naturalisations, 

Shaw's Calendar of Treasury Books, 65 
Shaqilcs, Felix — Mins. by, 262 
Sharpies, James — Life and Work, 2ii ; 

Washington, George, portrait, 261 
Sharpies, James (jun.) — Mins., 262 



Sharpies, Rolinda — Mins. by, 262 

Shelley, Samuel— Characteristics, 177 ; Life, 
175 ; Robertson, Alexandir, 184 ; Sale of 
Min. by, 175 ; Thomond, Marchioness, 175 

Sherborne MS.— Ports., 8 

Sheridan — Port., 129 

Sheridan, Mrs. — Beauty, 148 

Sheriff, Mr.— Port., 165 

Sheriff, Charles — Pupil A. Robertson, 184 

Shipley's Drawing School — Cosway, R., 108 ; 
Humphry, O., 148 

Shorter, Catherine — Port., 198 

Shute, John— Architecture, Treatise on, 35 ; 
Death, 36 ; Edward V'l., 36 ; Mins. by, 17, 
19 ; Portugal, Dofia Maria Infanta of, 36 

Sidney, Sir Philip — I'ort., 45 

Siferwas, John — Illuminator of Sherborne 
MS., 8 ; Salisbury Lectionarium, 8 

Signac — Collections of Mins. by, 201 

Simpson, Christopher — Port., 98 

Simpson, John — Daughter's Port., 122 

Simpson, Miss Sophia — Port., 169 

Sinaia — Miniature Collections, 241 

Sinebrychoff, Mons.— Collection, 239 

Singleton, \\illiam — Nephew's Port., 180 

Skeffington, Sir William — Port., 165 

Small, Col.— Port., 165 

Smart, John— .Academy, Royal, exhibits, 
136, 143 ; Anatomy, Knowledge of, 132 ; 
Artiitic Training, 133 ; Boydell, Miss, 137 ; 
Characteristics of Mins., 104, 131, i43-<> ; 
Cockbum, Thomas, 138 ; Cornwallis, 
Lord, 138 ; Cosway, Maria, 134 ; Daugh- 
ter, 143 ; Draughtsmanship, 131 ; Feather- 
stonhaugh, Mr., 140 ; Frames for Mins. 
made by Toussaint, 142 ; Garnett, Nelly, 
140 ; Indian Visit and Work, 136, 137, 
138, 141, 142 ; Life, 132, 133, 135, 136, 
141, 142 ; Missing Mins., List of, 146 ; 
NoUekens, Sculptor, 143 ; Oakeley, Lady, 
140 ; Oil Painting, 138 ; Pencil Drawings, 
139 ; Ports, of, 146 ; Reynolds, Col., 143 ; 
Salting Bequest Mins., 233 ; Society of 
Arts Prize, 133 ; Son, Ports., 134, 141, 143'; 
Tyssen, Sarah, 134 ; Walpole, The Hon. 
Thomas, 146 ; Watts, Mr., 163 ; White, 
Mr, and Mrs., 138 

Smart, John (jun.) — Booty, Mr., 141 ; Death 
in India, 139 ; Large Mins., 141 ; Life, 139 ; 
Man, name unknown, 180 ; Ponsonby, 
Gerald, 141 ; Ports, of by Father, 134, 141, 
143 ; Sketches for Ports., 141 ; Topping, 
Michael, 141 ; Turning, Mrs., 141 

Smart, Samuel Paul, 139 

Smirke, Mary — Pencil dra-vvings, 139 

Smith. Capt. (Col.l— Port., 161 

Smith, J. T., Life of Nollekins — Richard 
Coswav, 108, loi 

Smith, Miss — Port., 169 

Society of Arts, Prizes won by — Cosway, R., 
107, 133 ; Smart, J., 133 

Somerset, 6th Duke of — Port., 207 

Somerset, E. Seymour, Duke of — Port, 20, 28 

Sophia, Princess — Port., 74 

Sotheby, Mrs., Coll. at Ecton — Cooper, S., 
68, 238 ; Di.\on, N., 82 ; Greatness of the 
Coll., 238 ; HiUiard, N., 30 ; Holbein, H., 
238 ; Hoskins, J., 50, 54, 238 ; Hoskins, 

J. (jun.i, 49, 51 ; Lockey, R., 35 ; Oliver, 

I., 40, 238 ; Oliver, P., 44, 45, 238 
Southampton, Countess of, 190 
Southampton, R. de Ruvignv, Countess of — 

Port., 56 
Spain— Miniature Collections, 241 
Sparkes, Mr. — Port., 163 
Sparrgren — Mins. by, 20, 201 
Spectator — Smart " Little John," 139 
Spencer, Earl, Althorp Park Coll. — Col., 

237 ; Dixon, N., 82 ; Humphry, O., 153 ; 

Lens, B., loi ; Oliver, I., 39 
Spencer, Gervase — Academy exhibits, 196 ; 

Characteristics of Mins., 196 ; Morgan 

Collection, 241 
Spiccr, Henry — Enamel, 196 
Spiering, .Anne— Port., 213 
Spraggf, Sir Edward — Port., 86, 97 
Stafford, Lord — Port, of, 16 
Stamford, Earl of — Min., 96 
Staring, Dr. — Gerbier, B., 85 ; Vryberghe, 

Mrs. Van, 88, 89 
State Papers — Hilliard, L., 33 ; Hilliard, N., 

Stead, Mr.— Port, of, by J. Smart, 146 
Stirling, Capt. — Port, of, by W. Wood, 169 
Stockholm Historical Museum Coll., 239 
Stopford, Master Thomas, 166 
Strawberry Hill Coll.— Hilliard, R., 27; 

Lens, B., 86, MSS., 99 ; Oliver, I., 39 ; 

Oliver, P., 43 ; Sale of Coll., 237 ; Zincke, 

Enamel, 189 
Street, John — Port., 170 
Streets, Gwillim— Edward VI. port, (att.), 

18 ; Mins. by, 17 
Strich, Maria— Port., 213 
Strickland, Mr., Collection — Lens, P. P., 

101 ; Lockey, R., 35 
Strong, Mr. — S. Cooper, port., 66 
Stuart, Col. James — Port., 159, 166 
Stuart, Maj.-Gen. Sir John, 161, 169, 171 
Stuart, Gilbert — Boydell, Alderman, 256 ; 

Fothergill, Dr., 256 ; Henderson, J., 257 ; 

Knox, J., 257 ; Life, 256 ; Pupils, 255, 

261 ; Re>Tiolds, Sir J., 256 ; Washington, 

G., 256, 257 ; West, B., work in studio, 256 
Stubble, Mr.— -Artist, 161 
Studio, The — Catalogue by Mr. Kennedy of 

the Bucclcuch Collection, 234, 235 
Sturt^Engra\Tngs to a Book of Common 

Praver, 99 
Suckling, Rev. R. A. J., CoU., 134 
Suffolk, Ch. Brandon, Duke of — Port., 13, 14 
Suffolk, Duchess of — Port., 12 
Suffolk, Hv. Brandon, Duke of— Port., 13 
Sully, Robert M.— English N'isit, 256 ; Port. 

of fs'orthcote, 256 
Sully, Thomas — Bridport, H., 260 ; Instruc- 
tion received from G. Stuart, 255 ; Life, 

2?5 ; Miniatures, 255, 256 
Sulyard, Edward — Heirs. 172 
Sumner, James — Port., 165 
Sussex, Duke of — Port., 125 
Sutherland, Duke of, 70 
Swedish Collection, 239 
Sydenham, Dr. — B. Beals, study with, 95 
Svdnev, Ladv Mary — Ports., 18, 35 
Talbot, Sir Arundel— Port., 41 



Tart Hall Collection, 87 
Taylor, Miss — Port., 166 
Taylor, Mr. — Engleheart's Pigments from 

China, 251 
Ter-north, Gcsina — Port., 214 
Teorlinc, Laviuia — Child, 18 ; English 
Court Painter, ii»; Ports. Girls, 11, 233 
Thicnpondt — Enamels, 20, 204 
Thomas, Josiah — Port., 162 
Thomond, Marchioness — Port., 175 
Thompson, Mr. — Port., 169 
Thopas, Joharmes — Plumbago Dr., 214 
Thorbum— Characteristics, 185 ; Ivory sur- 
faces, 185 
Thynne, Thomas^Port., 209 
Tinloretto — Mins. attributed to, 240 
Titi 111 — Mins. attributed to, 240 
TomUiiison, Mr. — Port., 146 
Tonson, .1 c ob— Port., loi 
Topping, Michael — Port., 141 
Tours — Enaiiellers, 189 
Toussaint — Frames des., 142 
Toutin, Henr>- — Enamcller and Pastel 

Painter, 189 
Toutin, Jean — Enamelled case for Mins., 50, 

54, 189 ; Fellow-workers, 190 
Townsend, Mcridith, Port., 161 
Tracy, Viscountess, — Port., 208, 209 
Trott, Benjamin — Mins., 261 
Trumbull, John — Aide-de-camp to Washing- 
ton, 258 ; Imprisonment, 258 ; Lawrence, 
Col., 163 ; Life, 258 ; Mercer,' Gen., 258 ; 
Mins. copied, 163 
Tudor, Lady Mary, Countess of Derwent- 

watcr — Mother, 57 
Turner, William — daughter m. S. Cooper, 65 
Turner Collection — Mins,, 150, 152, 153 
Turning, Mrs. — Port., 141 
Twisden, Sir Roger — Port., 146 
Tyson, Sarah — Port., 134 
Upcott, William — Collector of Books, MSS 
and Medals, 151 ; Humphrey, O., 152, 
Usher, Mr. Ward — Collection, 237 
Vander Doorts, Catalogue— L. Hilliard, 33 
Vandyck,|Copies of Pictures— Oliver, P., 43 ; 

Petitot, J., 190 
Vaslet, Louis— Mins., 181 
Vaux, Mr. John — Port., 167 
Velde, J. Van de — Plumbago Drs., 214 
Verbruggcn, J. — Plimibago Drs., 213 
Vernon, Col. G. A. and Miss Caroline Vernon, 

Vertue, George — Cleyn, Penelope, 88 ; Cleyn 
Familv, 83 ; Cooper, S., 67 ; Crosse, L., 
96 ; Dixon, N., 81, 88 ; Hilliard, Treatise 
on Limning, 25, 26 ; Floskins, Father and 
Son, 47,' 49, 51 ; Oliver, I., Oils, 39 ; 
Oliver, Mrs. Peter, and Charles II., 42 ; 
Pencil Drawings, 206 ; Plumbago Draw- 
ings, 213 ; Ross, Mrs., 88 
Vestier — Mins. by, 204 
Victoria, Queen— Ports, by Bone, H. (jun.), 

192 ; Essex, V\'., 198, 199 
Victoria and Albert Museum — Art Library, 
230 ; Beale, Charles, 95 ; Buccleuch Coll., 
234 ; Cooper, S., 66, 71 ; Gibson, Susan 
P., 87.; Htskins, J., 57 ; jone* Coll., 233 ; 

Oliver, I., 41 ; Oliver, P., 45 ; Salting 
Bequest, see that title 

\'iaprf , M. de — Port., 146 

Vienna — Collections, 240 

\'illir TS — Mins., 204 

Vosse, Cornelius de— Gold Mines in Scot- 
land, 29, 31 

Vrybcrghe, Mrs. Van — Port., 88 

Waddesdon — Collection of Miss Alice de 
Rothschild, 238 

VValdcgrave, Ladies — Port., 151 

Wales, Prince of — Port., 124 

Wales, Princess Dowager of — Port., 124 

Wall, John— Goldsmith, 24 

Wallace Collection, Heitford House — Du- 
mont, 202; Foreign .Mins., 234; Frago- 
nard Mins., 203 ; Hall Mins 200; Holbein 
self-portrait, 12 

Wallop, Frederick — Flatman's portrait of 
Edward Gregory, 90 

Walpole, Horace, and Walpole Collection — 
Cooper, S., 60, 61, 65 ; Crosse, " Lewis," 
96, 97 ; Digby Family Portraits, 237 ; 
Elizabeth, Queen, Prayer Book, 30 ; Gib- 
son, R., sclf-portraif, 87 ; Hilliard, R., 27 ; 
Holbein, H., 12 ; Hoskins, J., 57 ; Lens, 
B., loi ; Mother, Portrait of, by Zincke, 
198; Oliver, I., 39, 40 ;■ Petitot Enamel, 
190 ; Pupil for drawing of B. Lens, 99 ; 
Shute, J., 35 ; Smart, J., 140 ; Sotheby 
Collection, 238 ; Zincke enamels, 195 

Walpole, Sir Robert, Earl of Oxford — 
Enamel Port, of wife with himself, by 
Zincke, 198 

Walpole, The Hon. Thomas— Port., 146 

Walpole Society— Hilliard, N., Article on, 24 
25i 27 ; Welbeck Abbey Coll. Catalogue,238 

Walters, John — Mins., 261 

Wandelaar, Jan— Plumbago Dr., 214 

^Vard, Mr.— Port., 146 

Ward Usher Coll.— Min., 172 

Warrack, John — Rhind Lectures, 29 

Washington, George — Aide-de-camp f J. 
Trumbull, 258 ; Peale, C. Wilson, port., 
260 ; Stuart, G., ports., 256, 257 

Washington, Mrs., Portraits — Peale, C. Wil- 
son, 260 ; Trumbull, J., 258 

Water-colours, Soc. of Assoc. Artists in — 
Chalon, member, 185 ; Collapse of Society, 
170, 171 ; Exhibitions, 170, 171 ; Founded 
by W. Wood, 170 

Water-colours, Soc. of Painters in, 175 

Watncy, \'emon — Port, of Lady J. Sey- 
mour, 12 

Watts, Mr.— Port., 163 

Watts, Mr. James — Port., 166 

Watts, Miss (Mrs. Adam Gordon), 166, 167 

Way, Master Lewis — Port., 168 

Way, Mr. — Port., 163 

Welbeck Abbey Collection, Catalogue — 
Cooper, S., 66 ; Dixon, N,, 81 ; Forstcr, T., 
210 ; Gibson, R., 89 ; Granges, D. des, 92 ; 
Hilliard, N., 20, 24, 28 ; Holies, J., Ac- 
count Book, 52 ; Hoskins, J., 51 ; Hum- 
phry, O., 153 ; Lens, B., 100, 101 ; Oliver, 
I., 39 ; Oliver, P., 43, 45 

Wellesley Collection — Bogle, J., 180 ; Coe- 
way, R., 1 14, 180 ; Faber, J., and sou, 210, 



2H ; Faithome, W., 2ii ; Forster, T., 
210 ; Gerbier, B., 85 ; Gibson, R., self- 
portrait, 87 ; Humphry, O., 153, 180 ; 
Lens, 1*. 1'., loi ; Loggan, D., 207 ; 
Nanteuil, R., 214 ; Paton, D., 213 ; 
Singleton, \\., 180 ; Stuart, G., 257 ; 
Trtinibull, J., 258 ; White, R., 209 

Wellington, Duke of — Enam. Port, of, 199 

Wentworth, Lady — Port., 141 

West, Benjamin— Malbone's visit to, 254 ; 
Peale Family, 259, 260 ; Portrait of, by A. 
Robertson, 183 ; Pupil, A. Robertson, 
184 ; Stuart, G., 256 ; Trumbull, J., 258 

Whas John — Scribe of the Sherborne MS., 8 

Wliitcximbe Green Coll. — A. Cooper, 78 

White, George— Drawings by, 211, 213 

White, Robert — Addison, Joseph, 209 ; 
Bunyan, John, 209 ; Catherine of Bra- 
ganza, Queen, 209 ; Characteristics, 209 ; 
Charles IL, 209 ; Collections of Works by, 
209 ; Dobson, William, 209 ; Drawings, 
206, 215 ; Henrietta Amie (daughter of 
Charles I.), 209 ; James IL, 209 ; Mon- 
mouth, Duke of ,209 ; Plumbago Mins. by, 
205, 206 ; Pupil of D. Loggan, 209 ; Self- 
portrait, 209 ; Thynne, Thomas, 209 

White, Mr. and Mrs. — Port., 138 

Whitefoorde, Caleb— Litho., 171 

Whitehead, Jeffery, 103 

Whitehead, Mr. — Queen Elizabeth's Prayer 
Book, 30 

WTiitting, Mrs.— Port., 225 

Wienix, Jan — Plumbago Drs., 214 

William HL, Portraits — Faber, J., 2H 
Forster, T., 210 

William IV. — Enaineller Henry Bone, 197; 
Miniature painter Sir W. Newton, 185 

Williams, Alyn — Treatise on Modem Minia- 
ture Painting, 257 

Williams, Miss — Port., 169 

Williamson, Dr. G. C. — Collection, Bancks, 
Charles, 214, Blootelling, Abraham, 214, 
Cooper, Samuel, 67, 69, Faber, John 
and Son, 210, 211, 212, Forster, Charles, 
211, Forster, Thomas, 208, 209, Hum- 
phry, Ozias, 150, Lens, Andrew B., loi, 
Loggan, David, 207, Russell, John, 
176, Smart, John (jun.), 180, Wliite, 
George, 211, White, Robert, 209 ; Ham 
House Collection of Miniatures, Cata- 
logue by Mrs. Roundell, 236' ; Morgan Col- 
lection Catalogue, see Morgan ; Plimer, 
Andrew and Nathaniel, 116'; Usher Col- 
lection, The, preface, 237^ 

V\'indsor Castle Collection — Bone, H., Ena- 
ciels, 197 ; Humphry', O., 153 ; Import- 
ance of Collection, 235 ; Loggan, D., 207 ; 
Oliver, I., 41 ; Oliver, P., 43, 45 ; Prieur, 

P., 193 ; Ross, Sir W., 184 ; Wood, W., 
172 ; %ee also Royal Collections 

Wingfteld, C. S.— Port., 141 

V\'ingfic!d-Digby Collection — Oliver, I., 39 ; 
Oliver, P., 43 

Wishart, Sir James — Port., 210 

Woburn, Collection of the Duke of Bedford, 
197, 236 

Wolcot, Dr. (Peter Pindar).— Port, of, by W. 
S. Lethbridge, 179 ; Satire on R. Cosway, 

Wolfl, Miss C— Port., 146 

Wood, Mr. (sen.) — Port., 165 

Wood, Miss — Port., 165, i66 

Wood, William — Academy Exhibits, 164- 
170 ; Barnard, Miss (also when Mrs. 
Hicks), 162 ; Bourchier, Mr., 161 ; Browne, 
Mrs., 162 ; Butler, Capt., 162 ; Copies of 
Miniatures, 163 ; Dashwood, Misses, 162 ; 
Essay on Sepulchral Monuments, 170, 171, 
172 ; Eye Miniatures, 165, 166 ; Fancy 
head " Cynthia," i65 ; Fancy Miniatures, 
170 ; Fitzgerald, Lord Edward, 162 
Gardens and Parks, 171 ; Glennies, Mr., 

161 ; Hodgitts, Mr., 158 ; Holmes, Mr., 

162 ; Hyde, Mrs., 161 ; Jemingham, Mrs, 
George, 172, 173 ; Johnson, Ben, copy of 
old picture, 158 ; Kelly, Mr., 161 ; 
Larabton, Miss Fanny, 159 ; Lambton 
children, two, 159 ; Landscapes, 171 ; 
Lemon, Sir William, 161 ; Life, 163, 171 ; 
Lithograph, 171 ; MSS. and Ledgers, 156, 
157. i59i 160, 161, 162, 163, 172; New- 
land, Abraham, 161 ; Nightingale, Col., 
i6i ; Norman, Master, 162 ; Pepys, 
Charles, 160 ; Pigments used by, 157, 159, 
160 ; Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 158 ; Samp- 
son, Mrs., 162 ; Self-portrait, 165 ; Sister's 
portrait, 158 ; Smith, Capt. Col., i6i ; 
Stuart, Col. James, 159, 166 ; Stuart, 
Maj.-Gen. Sir John, 161, 169, 171; Thomas. 
Josiah, 162 ; Townsend, Meridith, 161 ; 
Water-colour Work, 171, 172 ; Woulfe, 
Sir Jacob, 158 

Woulfe, Sir Jacob — Port., 158 

Worlidge, Thomas — Plumbago Drs., 213 

Wrench, Man,' — Mins. by, 261 

Wright, Dr. James — Port., 165 

Wroxton .-^bbey, Collection of Lord North — 
Dixon, N., 83 ; Granges, D. des, 92 

Wurtemburg, Duchess of — Port., 125 

Wyatt, Mrs. Benjamin— Port., 169 

Young, Admiral — Port., 141 

Zincke — Enam. Min. Ports., 195 ; Pupil of 
Boit, 194, 195 ; Pupils, J. Meyer and 
Prewitt, 178, 195 ; Shorter, Catherine, 
198 ; Walpole, Sir Robert, 198 

Zofiany — Painting of Academicians, 109 


Los Angeles 
Tb(s book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 




Form L9-32)n-8,'58(5876s4)444 

3 11 

58 00795 8571 


AA 001309 846 2