The 17th and 18th Century Busts of Oliver Cromwell. Part 1, The Milwaukee Museum of Art and the Russell Cotes Museum versions.

The 17th and 18th Century Busts of Oliver Cromwell. 

Part 1.

A Bust of Oliver Cromwell 

Formerly attributed to Louis Francois Roubiliac.

at the Milwaukee Museum of Art,
and another at the Russell Cotes Museum, Bournemouth.


A few notes on all the busts and portraits - but by no means definitive!


I currently believe that  both the Milwaukee and Bournemouth busts are 19th century.

They are possibly the work of  Edward Hodges Bailey who cut his teeth sculpting the Bust of Locke inscribed after Roubiliac 1828 and Francis Bacon both at Magdelen College, Oxford and a bust of Isaac Newton dated 1828 in the National Portrait Gallery. see my blog posts -

http://bathartandarchitecture.blogspot.com/2018/01/busts-of-john-locke-and-francis-bacon.html

https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw04663/Sir-Isaac-Newton

The current attribution needs to be confirmed:

The Socle is probably later on the Milwaukee bust, this form of socle was not frequently used in England in the mid 18th century.

To my eye it is too large and too squat for this bust .


This bust with the sash is perhaps derived from the Robert Walker Portrait

Oliver Cromwell
Robert Walker
Duke of Grafton
Euston Estate

Oliver Cromwell was painted many times by the artist Robert Walker but this image is unusual: Cromwell is shown wearing a white mantle, which frames a gold pendant on which appear the three crowns of Sweden. Its connection with Andrew Marvell’s poem, and with an exchange of portraits which took place between Cromwell and Queen Christina in 1653, was only re-established relatively recently. The identification brings into focus some of the ways in which a gift-portrait can do diplomatic work.

This text from: 

see - http://www.textualambassadors.org/?p=801

_________________________


The Langley Park / Huntington Library busts of Oliver Cromwell.

The first published of a marble bust of Cromwell by Roubiliac

A bust of Cromwell by Roubiliac is referred to in A General History of the County of Norfolk, edited by John Chambers, pub. 1829.

On page 845 - in the entry on Langley park it refers to "Four colossal busts of  William II, George I, Hampden, and Oliver Cromwell - Roubiliac on termes of curious Alabaster Fiorito Marble" in the Central Division of the Garden Gallery. 

Langley Park was was originally built c.1730 for Richard Berney, on 25 hectares (60 acres) of land that until the Dissolution of the Monasteries belonged to Langley Abbey. It was sold a few years later to George Proctor, who commissioned Matthew Brettingham to remodel the building. In 1744, the estate was inherited by Proctor's nephew, Sir William Beauchamp who, in compliance with his uncle's will, changed his name to Beauchamp-Proctor and who was created a baronet the following year. The family later changed their name to Proctor-Beauchamp. He completed the building work and employed Lancelot Brown to advise on the landscaping.

For further information on Langley see - https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1001008

for bookcase from Langley and further information see - 

https://apter-fredericks.com/product/an-important-george-ii-mahogany-bookcase-from-langley-park-norfolk/

Langley Park, Norfolk.
showing two of the four busts

19th/20th Century photograph showing two (Cromwell and William III?) of the four busts mentioned in a General History....... 1829.

 "Four colossal busts of  William II, George I, Hampden, and Oliver Cromwell.
in which these busts are attributed to Roubiliac.

This is obviously mistaken - the bust of Cromwell by Rysbrack now at the Huntington would appear to be the bust on the left in the 19th/20th Century photograph above.
The bust on the right would appear to be the bust of Hampden also by Rysbrack.


More work is needed but it would seem too much of a coincidence that versions of three of the busts from Langley Park ie Cromwell Hampden and if I am correct the Full wigged William III are now at the Huntington Library.

I have tried contacting the library at the Huntington but with limited success. I have obtained photographs of the Terracotta bust of Milton (for a future post on three dimensional representations of Milton) and of the Roubiliac plaster bust of Handel but good photographs of Cromwell, Hampden and the putative William III have so far  remained elusive - I will try again!

Oliver Cromwell
Michael Rysbrack
Marble Bust

Huntington Library.

Very poor low resolution photograph of the Huntington Cromwell by Rysbrack.

From the very uninformative Huntington Website which could do with a serious upgrade.

John Hampden
Michael Rysbrack
Huntington Library, California

see also:

http://bathartandarchitecture.blogspot.com/2015/07/temple-of-british-worthies-at-stowe.html

Photograph above from

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/buildings/35420629/in/album/415693

For more on the Huntington Busts and the fire damage incurred on 17 October 1985
including that to the marble of Cromwell, terracotta of Milton, Plaster of Handel, and Marble of Sir Peter Warren.

see -

http://www.conservation-us.org/resources/disaster-response-recovery/jaic/account-of-huntington-library-and-gallery#.XAPM_Wj7SUk

Unidentified bust at the Huntington Library
Here suggested as William III by Michael Rysbrack


____________________

Two Busts of Oliver Cromwell.

At Milwaukee Art Museum and the Russel Cotes Museum Bournemouth.
Both previously attributed to Roubiliac but probably 19th Century.


Below I have posted photographs of the known terracotta bust (British Museum) and portrait relief of Cromwell by Roubiliac.

So far I have been unable to locate a terracotta version of the two marble busts below or a marble version of the B.M. terracotta.

This is not to say that they do not exist and are awaiting discovery.

George Vertue saw a Roubiliac bust of Cromwell in Roubiliac's studio in 1738 where he also saw busts of Farranelli (sic), Sir Isaac Newton and the statue of Handel.

Mrs Esdaile notes that the bust seen by Vertue was most likely of the "dull marble copy"
Russel Cotes type.

I have not had first hand experience of either bust and am awaiting further photographs.

Oliver Cromwell

Marble

28 × 20 in. (71.12 × 50.8 cm)

Signed on the back Rubiliac Sculpe?

I am waiting for confirmation of this.

Milwaukee Art Museum,

 Anonymous gift, M1965.26

Photographer credit: P. Richard Eells

Anonymous Gift, previously owned by John Maxon?

Photograph and information Courtesy Milwaukee Art Museum

_________________

Internet photograph of the Milwaukee Museum Bust.

See -

http://collection.mam.org/details.php?id=11214

Oliver Cromwell.

Bust.

which has been attributed to Louis Francois Roubiliac.

Further research refutes this attribution.

Milwaukee Museum.

______________________

Oliver Cromwell.

Marble Bust 

 Russell Cotes Museum, Bournemouth.

_______________________

This is not either of the busts in the Russel Cotes Museum or the Milwaukee Museum(above).

Very Poor Images from Alamy

Another photograph library that hopes to capitalise on ignorance!

Their website even fails to give the location of the sculpture.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-bust-of-oliver-cromwell-by-louis-franois-roubiliac-

76394526.html

More to follow on these busts!

___________________________

Oliver Cromwell

Louis Francois Roubiliac

Terracotta 

Height: 63.3 centimetres (max.)

Width: 50.3 centimetres

Depth: 22 centimetres

British Museum

This bust according Mrs Esdaile, (Roubiliac... pub 1928) and pointed out by Aileen Dawson in Portrait Sculpture: A Catalogue of the British Museum, pub. 1999 considered it iconographically the least satisfactory of the Museums busts which bears no resemblance to any famous picture,  suggesting that  it does not follow any obvious representation, but a brief trawl of the British Museum collection of the engravings of Oliver Cromwell suggests that Roubiliac based it on the portrait by Robert Walker (1595? - 1658). There is no shortage of these images (see below).

It was purchased by Dr Matey at the posthumous Roubiliac sale May 1762.

_________________________

Oliver Cromwell by Robert Walker.

This is not the place for a full blown investigation of the portraits of Oliver Cromwell and so I will post a few examples.

Oliver Cromwell

Engraving by Richard Gaywood

after Robert Walker

157 x 109 mm.

1653.

British Museum.

_____________________________

Oliver Cromwell

Thomas Jenner after Robert Walker

Engraving

139 x 97 mm

1652 - 58.

British Museum.

Oliver Cromwell

After Robert Walker

Francois Mazot

1649 - 52

 engraving

156 x 118 mm

National Portrait Gallery

_______________________________

Oliver Cromwell

 by Robert Walker

oil on canvas, 

circa 1649

49 1/2 in. x 40 in. (1257 mm x 1016 mm)

Transferred from British Museum, 1879.

National Portrait Gallery.

_______________________

Oliver Cromwell

Robert Walker

National Portrait Gallery 

_______________________________

Oliver Cromwell

Robert Walker

Bodleian Library

_______________________

125.7 x 104.1 cms

Oil on canvas

Dunster Castle

National Trust

Image courtesy Art UK

__________________________

Oliver Cromwell

Philip Mould

________________________

Oliver Cromwell 

by Robert Walker

Oil on canvas

130.8 x 105.4 cms

Mid 17th Century

Philip Mould, Historical Portraits.

see - http://www.historicalportraits.co.uk/Gallery.asp?Page=Item&ItemID=1996&Desc=Oliver-Cromwell-|-Robert-Walker

To view portraits currently for sale at Philip Mould & Co, please go to www.philipmould.com.

This highly important portrait, that for the last eighty years had been lost to the canon of Robert Walker’s portraits of Cromwell, was likely painted late into the Protectorate (1653-58) when the subject was “chief magistracy and the administration of government”. The outstandingly direct and fresh characterisation, in contrast to the often indifferent quality of Walker’s studio productions, combined with the artist’s re-working of earlier poses, places it as arguably his most dynamic renderings of the subject. Its likely connection to the celebrated Republican engineer David Papillon - Cromwell’s contemporary - adds an intriguing, and hitherto unexplored dimension to its historical status.

Robert Walker’s portraits of Oliver Cromwell:

Prior to the emergence of this portrait, Walker was thought to have painted four portrait-types of Cromwell shown three-quarter length, all of which use the same head-type but with varying compositions.

Perhaps the best known of the Walker types is the portrait of Cromwell with a page tying a blue sash around his waist, the finest example of which is in the National Portrait Gallery, London, with a further example at Leeds Museum. The Leeds version is dated 1649 and the composition was engraved by the French engraver Pierre Lombart (1613-82) sometime between February 1651 and 1653.

The second type shows Cromwell standing with his left hand resting on a helmet and his right hand holding a baton. This composition was copied directly from Van Dyck’s portrait of Sir Edmund Verney, and a number of versions exist, including one in the Cromwell Museum, Huntingdon, which was reputedly given to Bridget Cromwell on her marriage to Henry Ireton in 1646. Such a date would mean it was painted prior to the conclusion of the English Civil War, which, although unlikely, is not impossible. Walker was certainly active during the period prior to his Cromwell portrait of 1649, and we know that the diarist John Evelyn sat for his portrait in 1648 [National Portrait Gallery, London].

The third portrait-type shows Cromwell (the Hinchingbrooke type formerly on loan to the House of Commons) with a page on the right and a helmet with feathers on a ledge to the left. The positioning of Cromwell’s body is very similar to the first type, although the baton is positioned in a more vertical manner and the young page is tying the sash around Cromwell’s left arm. A receipt for twenty-four pounds, signed by Walker and dated 25 June 1655 ‘for the draught of his highnesses picture’, was formally in the collection at Hinchingbrooke House, and has long been used as a method of dating this composition. Although the portrait has its obvious negative aspects, particularly seen in the overly complicated composition, it does succeed in showing a distinctly older, more weary-looking Cromwell compared to the earlier type.

The fourth type is a double portrait in which Cromwell is depicted alongside General Henry Lambert. The positioning of Cromwell is very similar to that seen in the second type although the sash has been removed and replaced with a red cape tied around the neck of the armour. The positioning of Lambert, with his arm outstretched, bears a striking resemblance to Van Dyck’s portrait of Count van der Bergh, which was previously in the collection of Charles I, and is no doubt another example of Walker’s reliance on the work of past masters.

Analysis of the present work:

Although this portrait shares obvious compositional affinities with the second portrait type, most noticeable in the positioning of the left hand on the helmet, there is demonstrative evidence that the composition was changed a number of times, and in areas radically re-worked.

The gauntlet, for example, which is worn on the hand holding the baton, was a late addition by the artist, and the hand was originally intended to be shown exposed. This can be seen most clearly under x-ray, where one notices not only the distinct edge of the original armour sleeve beneath, but also the unbroken reflection which once ran the length of the forearm down to the wrist, which is now partly obscured by the gauntlet. The emergence of a thumb nail on the left hand when viewed under infrared light confirms that this too was originally intended to be shown un-gloved, suggesting that this work was a development on (and thus later than) the second portrait type.

Although the vertical positioning of the baton is unique within Walker’s portraits of Cromwell, a clear pentimento reveals that the baton was originally positioned diagonally in exactly the same manner as the first portrait type. The decision to change the position of the baton is unclear, however it was most likely due to a compositional conflict, as the end of the baton, which as seen in the first portrait type finishes beyond the edge of the canvas, would have interrupted the form of the helmet to the right. It is also possible that this decision to change the composition was influenced by the style of portraiture on the continent at that time, and one notices obvious affinities between this re-worked composition and the work of painters like Gerrit van Honthorst working in The Hague around this date. Honthorst’s portrait of the prominent Royalist officer James Graham, 1st Marquis of Montrose, for example, makes an interesting comparison with the present work.

The borrowing of elements from other artist’s compositions was not uncommon for Walker, who ‘was asked why he did [not] make some of his own postures, says he if I could get better I would not do Vandikes […]’ the same writer adding ‘He [Walker] would not bend his mind to make any Postures of his own.’ This work can perhaps then be considered the second example of Walker re-appropriating a Royalist composition for Cromwell’s likeness; the first being of course Walker’s second portrait type of Cromwell based on the Van Dyck of Sir Edmund Verney, favourite of Charles I. This practice of recycling royalist imagery to support the parliamentary cause during Cromwell’s lifetime was not uncommon, and can be seen quite clearly in the work of engraver Pierre Lombart, who engraved Van Dyck’s grand portrait of Charles I on horseback and simply swapped-out the head of Charles for that of Cromwell.

The final evidence of compositional reworking can be found at the back of Cromwell near where the sash is tied. It is unclear what the artist’s original intentions were in this area and little information can be gleaned by the shape of the remaining forms, which were presumably erased quite quickly after application. It is possible that the sash was originally tied in a more elaborate manner, or that the positioning of the sash was originally much further to the left and slightly higher.

A note on provenance:

When this portrait was illustrated in Maurice Ashley’s ‘Oliver Cromwell: The Conservative Dictator’ in 1937, it was still in the ownership of Pelham Rawstorn Papillon of Crowhurst Park, whose lineage can be traced back to the late-Tudor period. It almost certainly entered the family collection through David Papillon (1581–1659), the highly respected military engineer who, during the English Civil War, fortified Leicester and Gloucester and advised the parliamentary forces on the defences of Northampton. Papillon was a staunch protestant with French ancestry, and in 1635 translated a number of essays written by the late puritan divine Robert Bolton into French.

The Papillon family was actively commissioning portrait painters during this period, as evinced by a series of four portraits depicting David, his second wife Anna Maria (1591-1675), their son Thomas (1623-1702) and his wife Jane (née Brodnax). Although these portraits are only known through poor black-and-white images, they show distinct traits of Walker’s style.

Another portrait by Sir Peter Lely (1618-80), long-thought to depict Prince Rupert of the Rhine and painted c.1660, is now thought to depict a member of the Papillon family, and was almost certainly the portrait included in the Crowhurst Park sale (discussed below) as lot 440 (‘Prince Rupert, 30 x 25in., Sir P. Lely’).

Another notable seventeenth century family portrait is that of the young David Papillon (1691-98) by John Closterman, one of the finest late-baroque portraits of a child. The Closterman portrait, which is framed in exactly the same style of hand-carved frame, was included in the same sale as the present work, along with a number of other traceable family portraits painted within the mid-to-late seventeenth century.

Crowhurst Park entered the Papillon family through the marriage of Thomas to Anne Pelham, who inherited the estate following the death of her brother. Their eldest son, also called Thomas, sold the tradition family seat Acrise Place in 1861 and moved into Crowhurst, which then was then inherited by Lt. Col. Pelham Rawstorn Papillon. On the latter’s death Crowhurst was inherited by John Pelham Papillon who sold the house contents at auction over three days between 10-12th March 1942. In all likelihood, this portrait probably hung for some time at Acrise Place, which was acquired in 1666 by Thomas Papillon (1623-1702), and prior to that at Papillon Hall, built by David Papillon (1581-1659).

Text and photograph lifted from 

http://www.historicalportraits.co.uk/Gallery.asp?Page=Item&ItemID=1996&Desc=Oliver-Cromwell-|-Robert-Walker

The National Portrait Gallery and Art UK's websites could learn a thing or two from the excellent website entry of Historical portraits for this portrait.

____________________

Oliver Cromwell

Low resolution copy of a photograph of the Roubiliac terracotta relief.

28 cms in diameter without frame.

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada.

I have contacted the Royal Ontario Museum and am hoping for better photographs of this relief in due course.

This rather jowly portrait relief is perhaps based on the engraving below

Oliver Cromwell

Anonymous French engraving

149 x 108 mms

Late 17th Century

British Museum

Oliver Cromwell

Drawn by John Bullfinch after Robert Walker

275 x 193 mm.

British Museum

Oliver Cromwell

Engraving 

111 x 81 mm.

1658 - 1650.

British Museum

______________________

Oliver Cromwell

Rombout van den Hoeye

After Robert Walker 

Dutch

Mezzotint

400 x 304 mm.

1649 - 1686

British Museum

Another slightly jowly image of Cromwell

after Robert Walker

Engraving

182 x 141 mm

Late 17th Century.

British Museum

Oliver Cromwell

Jowly portrait

Original Dutch Broadside

372 x 275 mm. 

British Museum

____________________

Oliver Cromwell

Peter Pelham

after Robert Walker 

Mezzotint

352 x 252 mm.

1723

______________________________________