Johan Zoffany

18th century portrait of the painter Nathaniel Dance

1770s

Signed, inscribed and dated, lower right: 'Geo Dawe RA St Petersburgh 1819', also signed with initials, lower centre: 'G D RA'; and signed and inscribed verso: 'Geo Dawe RA Pinxit 1819 St Petersburgh'; Also inscribed on the stretcher by Cornelius Varley with varnishing instructions. Collections: Private collection, UK, 2010 Literature: Galina Andreeva Geniuses of War, Weal and Beauty: George Dawe...

Exhibited: London, Royal Academy, 1800, no. 93 What was happening in British history painting in around 1800? In recent discussions of the emergence of a British School of history painting following the foundation of the Royal Academy in 1768, this is a question which is rarely posed and one which is not easily answered. Examination of surviving Royal Academy exhibition catalogues reveals a profusion of artists’ names and titles, few of which remain immediately recognizable, whilst endeavours to explain the impact of exhibition culture on painting - such as the 2001 Courtauld show Art on the Line - have tended to focus on the first and second generation of Royal Academician, rather than young or aspiring artists in the early nineteenth century. This makes the discovery and identification of the work under discussion of exceptional importance in making sense of currents in English painting around 1800. Executed by Edward Dayes...

The Great Fire of London in September 1666 was one of the greatest disasters in the city’s history. The City, with its wooden houses crowded together in narrow streets, was a natural fire risk, and predictions that London would burn down became a shocking reality. The fire began in a bakery in Pudding Lane, an area near the Thames teeming with warehouses and shops full of flammable materials, such as timber, oil, coal, pitch and turpentine. Inevitably the fire spread rapidly from this area into the City. Our painting depicts the impact of the fire on those who were caught in it and creates a very dramatic impression of what the fire was like. Closer inspection reveals a scene of chaos and panic with people running out of the gates. It shows Cripplegate in the north of the City, with St Giles without Cripplegate to its left, in flames (on the site of the present day Barbican). The painting probably represents the fire on the night of Tuesday 4 September, when four-fifths of the City was burning at once, including St Paul's Cathedral. Old St Paul’s can be seen to the right of the canvas, the medieval church with its thick stone walls, was considered a place of safety, but the building was covered in wooden scaffolding as it was in the midst of being restored by the then little known architect, Christopher Wren and caught fire. Our painting seems to depict a specific moment on the Tuesday night when the lead on St Paul’s caught fire and, as the diarist John Evelyn described: ‘the stones of Paul’s flew like grenades, the melting lead running down the streets in a stream and the very pavements glowing with the firey redness, so as no horse, nor man, was able to tread on them.’ Although the loss of life was minimal, some accounts record only sixteen perished, the magnitude of the property loss was shocking – some four hundred and thirty acres, about eighty per cent of the City proper was destroyed, including over thirteen thousand houses, eighty-nine churches, and fifty-two Guild Halls. Thousands were homeless and financially ruined. The Great Fire, and the subsequent fire of 1676, which destroyed over six hundred houses south of the Thames, changed the appearance of London forever. The one constructive outcome of the Great Fire was that the plague, which had devastated the population of London since 1665, diminished greatly, due to the mass death of the plague-carrying rats in the blaze. The fire was widely reported in eyewitness accounts, newspapers, letters and diaries. Samuel Pepys recorded climbing the steeple of Barking Church from which he viewed the destroyed City: ‘the saddest sight of desolation that I ever saw.’ There was an official enquiry into the causes of the fire, petitions to the King and Lord Mayor to rebuild, new legislation and building Acts. Naturally, the fire became a dramatic and extremely popular subject for painters and engravers. A group of works relatively closely related to the present picture have been traditionally ascribed to Jan Griffier...

Collections: With Martyn Gregory; Judy Egerton, 1984, acquired from the above; By descent to 2014. Exhibited: London, Martyn Gregory, Exhibition of English & Continental Watercolours, 1984, no. 94. London, Lowell Libson...

Collections: Commissioned by Andrew Corbett, husband of the sitter; The Venerable Stuart Corbett; Sir Stuart Corbett; By descent to 2002; Sotheby’s, London 21 March 2002, lot.104; Lowell Libson...

THE HON. MARY SHUTTLEWORTH, NÉE COCKBURN (D. 1777) and her sister ANNA MARIA, 9TH BARONESS FORRESTER (D. 1808) Pastel and gouache on paper laid on canvas, on their original backb...

These two royal portraits are a major historical testimony to the stay of the Comte d'Artois (the future Charles X) and his family in Edinburgh in 1796-1797. Given by the sitters to Lord Adam Gordon, the Governor of Edinburgh, and kept by family descent to this day, these two portraits provide us with a vivid and spontaneous image of the Duc d’Angoulême and his brother the Duc de Berry. Danloux, who had emigrated to London a few years before, demonstrate his full assimilation of the art of British portrait painters in the brilliant execution of these portraits. 1. Henri-Pierre Danloux, a portraitist in the revolutionary turmoil Born in Paris in 1753, Henri-Pierre Danloux was first a pupil of the painter Nicolas-Bernard Lépicié (1735 - 1784) and then, in 1773, of Joseph-Marie Vien (1716 - 1809), whom he followed to Rome when, at the end of 1775, Vien became Director of the Académie de France. In Rome he became friends with the painter Jacques-Louis David (1748 - 1825). Returning to France around 1782, he settled in Lyon for a few years before returning to Paris in 1785. One of his first portraits was commissioned by the Baroness d'Etigny, the widow of the former Intendant of the Provinces of Gascony, Bearn and Navarre Antoine Mégret d'Etigny (1719 – 1767). He then became close to his two sons, Mégret de Sérilly and Mégret d'Etigny, who in turn became his patrons. In 1787, this close relationship with the d'Etigny family was further strengthened by his marriage to Antoinette de Saint-Redan, a relative of Madame d'Etigny. After his marriage, he left for Rome and did not return to France until 1789. It was during the winter of 1790-1791 that he painted one of his masterpieces, the portrait of Baron de Besenval. Set in a twilight atmosphere, this portrait of an aristocrat who knows that his death is imminent symbolizes the disappearance of an erudite and refined society which would be swept away by the French Revolution. The Jacobin excesses led Danloux to emigrate to England in 1792; many members of his family-in-law who remained in France were guillotined on 10 May 1794. Danloux enjoyed great success as a portrait painter in England before returning to France in 1801. During his stay in England, Danloux was deeply under the influence of English portraitists: his colors became warmer (as shown by the portrait of the Duc d'Angoulême that we are presenting), and his execution broader. 2. Description of the two portraits and biographical details of the sitters The Duc d'Angoulême (1775-1844) was the eldest son of the Comte d'Artois, the younger brother of King Louis XVI (the future King Charles X), and his wife Marie-Thérèse of Savoie. He is shown here, in the freshness of his youth, wearing the uniform of colonel-general of the "Angoulême-Dragons" regiment. He is wearing the blue cordon of the Order of the Holy Spirit, which was awarded to him in 1787, and two decorations: the Cross of Saint-Louis and the Maltese Cross, as he was also Grand Prior of the Order of Malta. Born on 16 August 1775 in Versailles, Louis-Antoine d'Artois followed his parents into emigration on 16 July 1789. In 1792, he joined the émigrés’ army led by the Prince de Condé. After his stay in Edinburgh (which will be further discussed), he went to the court of the future King Louis XVIII, who was in exile at the time, and in 1799 married his first cousin Marie-Thérèse Charlotte of France, the daughter of Louis XVI and the sole survivor of the royal family. The couple had no descendants. He became Dauphin of France in 1824, upon the accession to the throne of his father but played only a minor political role, preferring his military position as Grand Admiral. Enlisted in Spain on the side of Ferdinand VII, he returned home crowned with glory after his victory at Trocadero in 1823. He reigned for a very short time at the abdication of Charles X in 1830, before relinquishing his rights in favor of his nephew Henri d'Artois, the Duc de Bordeaux. He then followed his father into exile and died on 3 June 1844 in Gorizia (now in Italy). His younger brother, the Duc de Berry, is shown in the uniform of the noble cavalry of the émigrés’ Army. He is wearing the blue cordon of the Order of the Holy Spirit, awarded to him in May 1789, and the Cross of Saint-Louis (partly hidden by his blue cordon). Born on 24 January 1778 in Versailles, Charles-Ferdinand d'Artois also followed his parents into emigration and joined the émigrés’ army in 1792. After his stay in Edinburgh, he remained in Great Britain, where he had an affair with Amy Brown...

This exquisite portrait of a gentleman depicted in a sumptuous black coat edged with silver and slashed sleeves is an excellent example of the type of portrait fashionable in England and the Low Countries during the 17th century. The confident pose, striking orange sash - the colour of the house of Orange Nassau - and the leather gorget imbue the sitter with a sense of masculinity and power. The profusely decorated costume is of the highest quality and de rigueur of an elite class - the artist has carefully cultivated this portrait to emphasise the sitter’s wealth and standing in the society that he belonged to. The casual pose, with one arm resting on a hip, is much less formal than earlier decades, and it speaks of ‘sprezzatura’ – one’s appearance should not appear laborious, but instead, effortless. The oil on cradled panel portrait can be dated to circa 1650 based on the hairstyle and the attire - small falling collar, short doublet (doublets reduced in size to just below the ribcage in the late 1650’s), and the type of slashed sleeves with the sleeve seams left open to reveal the white fabric. The demand for portraits in the Netherlands was great in the 17th century. Bartholemeus van der Helst was considered to be one of the leading portrait painters of the Dutch Golden Age surpassing even Rembrandt as the most sought-after portraitist in Harlaam. The Dutch Golden Age, roughly spanning the 17th century, was a period when Dutch trade, science, military, and art were among the most acclaimed in the world. Dutch explorers charted new territory and settled abroad. Trade by the Dutch East-India Company thrived, and war heroes from the naval battles were decorated and became national heroes. During this time, The Dutch Old Masters began to prevail in the art world, creating a depth of realistic portraits of people and life in the area that has hardly been surpassed. The Golden Age painters depicted the scenes that their discerning new middle-class patrons wanted to see. This new wealth from merchant activities and exploration combined with a lack of church patronage, shifted art subjects away from biblical genres. Still life’s of items of everyday objects, landscapes, and seascapes reflecting the naval and trade power that the Republic enjoyed were popular. The new wealthy class were keen to have their portraits commissioned and many artists worked in this lucrative field. Such was the popularity of art that everyone had a painting, even the humble butcher, and hundreds of thousands of paintings were produced. By tradition the sitter is Maarten Tromp (1598-1653) who was an Admiral in the Dutch Navy (the reverse of the portrait contains an old handwritten inscription “van Tromp”). Certainly, the distinctive orange sash is similar to those worn by officers of the Dutch army in the Netherlands who served under the Princes of Orange and the House of Nassau. However, it should be noted that the physiognomy differs from other images of Tromp. Tromp was the oldest son of Harpert Maertensz, a naval officer and captain. He joined the Dutch navy as a lieutenant in July 1622 and was later promoted from captain to Lieutenant-Admiral of Holland and West Frisia in 1637. In 1639, during the Dutch struggle for independence from Spain, Tromp defeated a large Spanish fleet bound for Flanders at the Battle of the Downs, which marked an enormous change - the end of Spanish naval power. He was killed in action during the First Anglo-Dutch War in 1653 where he commanded the Dutch fleet in the battle of Scheveningen. Gloves were an absolutely vital accessory and the elaborate pair in this portrait are embellished with threads of silk and precious metals and salmon-coloured lining. He wears only one glove and holds the other, providing an opportunity to better display the cuffs and detail on his right wrist and forearm. The gloves are probably made from the most prized leather which came from Spain, in particular from Cordova. Cordovan leather was tanned with a special vegetal process that left it both highly impermeable and divinely soft. King Charles I, posed in a rather relaxed manner for Daniel Mytens’s portrait in 1631, is wearing gloves and boots in matching Cordovan leather. The hide is thick, but you can see just how supple it is from the way the gauntlet dimples and the long boot legs fold over themselves, rippling and wrinkling at the ankles. Apart from keeping hands warm the use of gloves during the 15th through the 19th centuries were full of symbolism and they were worn regardless of the season. They kept the skin unblemished - soft, smooth hands were considered highly attractive. This combination of necessity and proximity to bare skin made gloves a deeply personal gift and they took on a strong symbolic significance and were regarded as emblematic of fidelity and loyalty for hundreds of years. Such was the importance of their symbolism was that some gloves were never intended to be worn at all. Their luxury made them ideal gifts at court, and so in the 15th and 16th centuries, ambassadors often presented them as symbols of loyalty. Until the mid-19th century, it was customary to give gloves as tokens to guests at weddings and to mourners at funerals. Gentleman often gifted their bride-to-be with a pair of gloves (the obligatory gift) and were handed over at the betrothal and put on display before the wedding took place. It was probably their direct contact with the skin that led to the eroticism of gloves. Not only were pairs often exchanged between lovers, but from the 16th to the 18th centuries, it was common practice to remove one glove and give it as a gift to a favourite. The idea of the item being presented still warm from the wearer’s hand is certainly suggestive. Following the death of King George IV, his executors purportedly found over a thousand mismatched ladies’ gloves among his possessions. The sentiment of a 17th-century poem reveals the popularity of the practice: “Come to our wedding to requite your loves / Shew us your hands and we’ll fit you with gloves.” Such generosity might be pricey for the hosts, but gloves of varying quality could be offered depending on the status of the recipient. Pairs made with the finest Spanish leather might be reserved for immediate family, while coarse sheep’s leather could be distributed among the servants and tradesmen. The apportioning of quality according to class provided a very clear message of the gloves’ intended use. For refined guests, they were decoration; for the lower classes, they were functional. Bartholomeus van der Helst...

Giacomo used to paint with his brother Giulio, identifying their works with the monogram «I I». The strong influence of his father, Francesco, is undeniable in all his works, althoug...

In 1607, the Delft city council decided to commission a portrait of Stadholder Maurits of Nassau for the town hall, with Michiel van Mierevelt as the chosen artist due to the passing...

This magnificent oil on panel portrait, presented by Titan Fine Art, is a splendid example of the sumptuous female portraits that were painted for members of the upper echelons of society during the early part of the 1600’s. The artist has rendered this portrait with meticulous attention to detail and the surface effects of the fine materials. The elaborate lace coif and cuffs are painstakingly delineated, as is the bold black damask, and sumptuous gold decoration of her skirt and stomacher, which is wonderfully preserved and quite remarkable considering the age of the work and the fact that darker pigments are particularly vulnerable to fading and wear. This work with its spectacular depiction of costume is of absolute quality, it can be rated as one of the best works in the artist’s oeuvre and as such it is an important and splendid example of Dutch portraiture. The Dutch Golden Age of painting was a period in Dutch history, roughly spanning the 17th century, in which Dutch trade, science, military, and art were among the most acclaimed in the world. Dutch explorers charted new territory and settled abroad. Trade by the Dutch East-India Company thrived, and war heroes from the naval battles were decorated and became national heroes. During this time, The Dutch Old Masters began to prevail in the art world, creating a depth of realistic portraits of people and life in the area that has hardly been surpassed. The Golden Age painters depicted the scenes that their discerning new middleclass patrons wanted to see. This new wealth from merchant activities and exploration combined with a lack of church patronage, shifted art subjects away from biblical genres. Dress was a key component in portraits, and the exuberant attire reiterates the incredible wealth of this woman. The sitter will have visited the artist’s workshop and inspected examples on display. They would have chosen the size and the sort of composition and on that basis negotiated the price – which would have also been determined by the complexity of the clothing and the jewels that were to be depicted, and by the materials to be used. When all was considered, this portrait would have cost the sitter (or her husband) a substantial sum. The colour black was regarded as humble and devout yet at the same time refined and sophisticated and the most expensive colour of fabric to dye and to maintain. Citizens spent fortunes on beautiful black robes. Such uniformity must also have had a psychological side-effect and contributed to a sense of middle-class cohesion; the collective black of the well-to-do burgess class will have given its members a sense of solidarity. The colour was always an exciting one for artists and when this portrait was painted there were at least fifty shades of it, and as many different fabrics and accoutrements. Artists went to great lengths to depict the subtle nuances of the colour and the fabrics and textures and how they reflected light and it was an ideal background against which gold and crisp white lace could be juxtaposed to dramatic effect. The sitter is either a married women or a widower as is evident by the clothing that she wears and the position, toward her right, it is highly likely that this portrait was once a pendant that hung on the right-hand side of her husband’s portrait as was convention at the time. She wears a vlieger which was a type of sleeveless over-gown or cape worn by well-to-do married women in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Variations with short sleeves or high shoulder rolls are known. Sometimes sleeves were attached with aiglets, and often slits were made to allow belts or the hands to pass through. Three-piece vlieger costumes of this kind were standard items of clothing in portraits of the women of the civic elite in the period 1600-40 and was a variant of the Spanish ‘ropa’ and served as a trademark of well-to-do married burgher women. Girls and unmarried woman, including beguines, wore a bouwen (a dress with a fitted bodice and a skirt that was closed all round) instead. This clear distinction between apparel for married and unmarried women is clear not only from inventories and trousseau lists, but also from contemporary sources such as the Dutch Spanish dictionary published by Juan Rodrigues in 1634. In it, a bouwen is described as a ‘ropa de donzella’ (over-gown worn by a virgin) and a vlieger as a ‘ropa de casada’ (overgown worn by a married woman). It is striking how few women are depicted wearing a bouwen, unless they are part of a group, family or children’s portrait and it can therefore be assumed that independent portraits of unmarried women were seldom commissioned. It is also believed that the clothing worn in these portraits existed and were faithfully reproduced when cross-referenced with the few exact documents. These sources also demonstrate that clients wanted their clothing to be depicted accurately and with this in mind precious garments and jewels were often left in the painter’s studio. The prominent white lawn molensteenkraag (or millstone ruff) is held up by a wire supportasse and was reserved only for the citizens that could afford this luxurious item that often required 15 meters of linen batiste. The fabulous wealth of this sitter is also evident by the elaborate lace coif and cuffs which have been exquisitely depicted; lace was often literally copied by artists in thin white lines over the completed clothing. The gold bracelet with jewels is a type that was evidently fashionable as it is seen in a number of portraits during the 1610s and 1620. Clothing and jewellery were prized possessions and were often listed in inventories of estates and passed down from generation to generation. There were a great number of jewellers of Flemish origin working at all the courts and cities of Europe, competing with the Italians, and then the French, adapting themselves to the tastes and positions of their patrons and the raw materials available in the country where they worked. The fashion for jewels “in the Flemish style” succeeded that of the Italian style. Cornelis van der Voort, who was probably born in Antwerp around 1576, came to Amsterdam with his parents as a child. His father, a cloth weaver by trade, received his citizenship in 1592. It is not known who taught the young Van der Voort to paint, but it has been suggested that it was either Aert Pietersz or Cornelis Ketel. On 24 October 1598 Van der Voort became betrothed to Truytgen Willemsdr. After his first wife’s death he became betrothed to Cornelia Brouwer of Dordrecht in 1613. In addition to being an artist, Van der Voort was an art collector or dealer, or both. In 1607 he bought paintings from the estate of Gillis van Coninxloo, and after an earlier sale in 1610 a large number of works he owned were auctioned on 7 April 1614. Van der Voort is documented as appraising paintings in 1612, 1620 and 1624. In 1615 and 1619 he was warden of the Guild of St Luke. He was buried in Amsterdam’s Zuiderkerk on 2 November 1624, and on 13 May 1625 paintings in his estate were sold at auction. Van der Voort was one of Amsterdam’s leading portrait painters in the first quarter of the 17th century. Several of his group portraits are known. It is believed that he trained Thomas de Keyser (1596/97-1667) and Nicolaes Eliasz Pickenoy (1588-1650/56). His documented pupils were David Bailly (c. 1584/86-1657), Louis du Pré...

Titan Fine Art present this picture which formed part of a historic collection of an English aristocratic family, Lord and Lady Sandys at their magnificent baroque and Regency Grade-I listed family home, Ombersley Court. The house was among the most fascinating survivals of its kind in this country. The atmospheric interiors were distinguished above all for the works of art associated with two key moments in national history and, more specifically, to the roles of Colonel the Hon. John Russell in the Civil War and the reign of King Charles II and of Lord Arthur Hill, later 2nd Baron Sandys, in the Peninsular War. The collection was acquired or commissioned over five centuries and remained at Ombersley Court until its recent sale, the first in 294 years. This painting hung in The Great Hall (see photo). This charming portrait is an example of the type of small-scale panel portraits, often of splendid beauties of the time, that became fashionable from about the first quarter of the seventeenth century. The sitter has been depicted wearing a low-cut silk dress with the wide billowing sleeves typical of the late 1630’s. The simplicity of the ensemble is reinforced by the absence of lace on either the collar or cuffs. At this time gone are the complicated layers of fabrics, and now replaced with understated elegance of plain silk (satin and taffeta were most popular), with only a couple of focal points as accessories. There is an abundance of the accessory par excellence – pearls, and they are worn as a necklace, on her attire, and as earrings; the pear-shaped earrings are called ‘unions excellence’ reflecting the difficulty of finding perfectly matched pearls of such large size. They could range up to 20 millimetres in diameter. There is a splendid display of gold, diamond and pearl jewellery which is an obvious sign of her wealth. The portrait is thought to represent Thomas Bruce (1596-1654), Earl of Elgin. The physiognomy and features in our portrait strongly correlate to a portrait of the Earl, by Cornelius Johnson (1593-1661), painted circa 1638, and is held at Kenwood House, London. Another painting from Ombersley Court, also with Titan Fine Art, is contemporaneous to ours and is thought to represent the Earl’s wife, Diana Cecil, 1st Countess of Elgin (c.1603-1654) - it appears to have derived from Cornelius Johnson’s depiction of the Countess circa 1638, also at Kenwood House. During the 1630’s Johnson painted a number of portraits, obviously influenced by Van Dyke. Here, Theodore Russel, who worked in the studios of both Van Dyle and Johnson, and later specialised in small scale reproductions of his master’s works, modelled the head, with the striking large dark eyes, on Cornelius Johnson, and the attire on Anthony van Dyke. There are also other portraits by Johnson of the sitter with very similar facial features to that of the sitter in ours. Theodore Russel and Cornelius Johnson also had a family connection as it is thought that Russel’s step-mother was a sister of Johnson. Thomas Bruce, 1st Earl of Elgin, was a prominent Scottish nobleman who held titles such as the 3rd Lord Bruce of Kinloss. He resided at Houghton House in Bedfordshire and played a significant role in the political and social landscape of his time. His legacy as an Earl and Lord continues to be remembered in history. Thomas Bruce, born in Edinburgh in 1599, inherited the Scottish peerage title as the 3rd Lord Bruce of Kinloss at the age of 13 following his brother's untimely death in a duel. The family's estates, including Whorlton Castle and manor, were granted by King James I of England to Thomas's father, with the wardship of Thomas and the estates entrusted to his mother until he reached the age of 21. He maintained a strong connection with King Charles I's court during the Personal Rule, receiving titles of honour and prestigious roles throughout the years. Thomas Bruce was married twice in his lifetime. His first marriage was to Anne Chichester in 1622. Ann died in 1627, the day after giving birth to their only child, Robert Bruce, who later became the 1st Earl of Ailesbury. On 12 November 1629, Thomas Bruce married Lady Diana Cecil, the daughter of William Cecil and widow of Henry de Vere. The marriage was childless, but Diana brought significant estates with her. Thomas Bruce died on 21 December 1663 at the age of 64. This oil on panel portrait has been well cared for over its life, which spans almost four centuries. Having recently undergone a treatment to remove an obscuring discoloured varnish, it can be fully appreciated, and attributed to Theodore Russel. Once owned by Evesham Abbey, the manor of Ombersley was acquired by the Sandys family in the early 1600s, when Sir Samuel Sandys, the eldest son of Edwin Sandys, Bishop of Worcester and later Archbishop of York, took a lease on the manor, before receiving an outright grant in 1614. The present house, Ombersley Court, dates from the time of Samuel, 1st Lord Sandys, between 1723 and 1730. The house itself is a fine example of an English Georgian country house set in rolling countryside and surrounded by Wellingtonias, planted to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo by Arthur Hill, 2nd Baron Sandys, who played a distinguished part in the battle and was one of the Duke of Wellington’s aides de camp. The Duke also stayed in the house and in the Great Hall, was the Waterloo banner which was brought to the house by Sir Arthur Hill, aide-de-camp to the Duke of Wellington, who succeeded his mother, the Marchioness of Downshire as 2nd Lord Sandys. Further Waterloo memorabilia are kettle drums from battle. The family had a strong tradition of military and political service, dating back to the 17th century, and this was also reflected in the fine collection of portraits and paintings in the house. In short, Ombersley represented a vital aspect of British history. The house and more especially the collection were of the greatest historical importance. Houses that have remained in the possession of the same family for as many as three centuries have become increasingly rare. Through this portrait, collectors have a chance to acquire a piece of British history and an evocative vestige of a glittering way of life, which is now gone. Presented in a fine period frame. Theodore Russell, or Roussel, was born in London in 1614. His father came from Bruges to England and was the Royal Stuart jeweller. His apprenticeship was spent in the studio of his uncle, Cornelius Johnson, with whom he lived for about nine years. Sometime after 1632, he is said to have worked as an assistance to Van Dyck. He executed numerous copies of portraits by his famous master and other notable painters, also painting original works. He is particularly remembered for his portraits of Charles II at Woburn Abbey and James II at the Palace of Holyrood. His son, Antony Russel (c.1663–1743) was also a portrait-painter and is said to have studied under John Riley. Several of his copies were in the Royal Collections, and among the nobility. Provenance Richard Hill...