The Putative Marble Bust of Louis Francois Roubiliac (1695 - 1762).
National Portrait Gallery.
National Portrait Gallery.
Some minor updates added May 2023.
The NPG say sculpted by Joseph Wilton (1722 - 1803) and exhibited at the Society of Artists Exhibition of 1761 along with a marble bust of Oliver Cromwell.
I say "or not?"
Suggested here that it is perhaps a self portrait by Thomas Banks.
A few notes and images.
with some notes on the Sculptor Thomas Banks (1735 - 1805).
________________________
Wark, Robert. Eighteenth-Century Studies 12, no. 1 (1978): 119-22.
I am very grateful to Dana Josephson for pointing out this article.
It is good to know that I am not alone in my strongly held belief that this bust is neither of Roubiliac nor by Joseph Wilton.
___________________
Comparison of the putative Roubiliac bust with the Garrick Club Andreas Soldi Portrait of Roubiliac.
____________________________
____________________________
Comparison of the bust with the Dulwich Picture Gallery portrait by Andreas Soldi c. 1751.
_____________________________
Comparison of the bust with the Carpentier Portrait of c. 1761.
________________________________
Comparison of the bust with the Yale Paul Melon Centre Portrait of Roubiliac
by Francois Xavier Vispre.
_______________________________
Comparison of the bust with the so called Bernard Lens Portrait of Roubiliac.
The cleft chin certainly leaves room for doubt in my mind that this miniature portrait is actually of Roubiliac!
.........................................
update!
Whilst researching a completely different subject I came across the image below.
at the National Museum of Sweden, Stockholm website
Enamel on Copper. Attrib. Josias Barbette (1657 - c. 1731).
I very much doubt that this portrait is by Barbette!
and the shape of the cleft chin is not that of the chin in the definite portraits of Roubiliac.
------
See more on this portrait below.
Tessa Murdoch formerly of the V and A says not Roubiliac!
etc
________________________
Are these portraits of the same man as the subject depicted in the NPG so called possibly Roubiliac bust?
I know from past experience that this is dangerous territory,
but currently I believe that this bust is not Roubiliac.
The nose is a completely different shape.
On the portraits it is distinctly concave on the bust it is very definitely Roman.
___________________
The Putative Marble Bust of Roubiliac,
in the National Portrait Gallery,
This bust is now labelled "probably" Roubiliac,
formerly attributed to Joseph Wilton.
A 'Marble Busto' by Roubiliac, was exhibited at the Society of Artists in 1760 and 'A Bust' exhibited in 1761, previously associated by Mrs Esdaile with the self-portrait, have now been identified from contemporary sources as Roubiliac's Dr Frewin (there are two marble busts of Frewin at Christchurch College and the Bodleian Library) and Lord Ligonier.
In 1761 Roubiliac exhibited a bust of Wilton and Wilton exhibited 'A Bust of Mr. Roubiliac' and 'Ditto in marble of Oliver Cromwell' at the Society of Artists.
It is perhaps pertinent that only the bust of Cromwell is specified as marble.
It is possible that the bust depicted in the comparison photographs above was that exhibited in 1761 as the bust of Mr Roubiliac, but since 'marble' is specified only for Cromwell, and given comparisons of this bust with the known portraits (above) I believe this is very unlikely
‘Mr. Roubilliac by Mr. Wilton', lot 8 under 'BUSTS in Plaister', 2nd day of the Roubiliac Sale, 13 May 1762, may well be the plaster bust exhibited the previous year ( and now at the Royal Academy stores).
‘Mr. Roubilliac by Mr. Wilton', lot 8 under 'BUSTS in Plaister', 2nd day of the Roubiliac Sale, 13 May 1762, may well be the plaster bust exhibited the previous year ( and now at the Royal Academy stores).
As the Wilton Plaster bust of Roubiliac was owned by Roubiliac, it may have been mistaken for a self-portrait.
...........................
Lot 8, sold on the second day of the Roubiliac Sale was a plaster bust
of Wilton by Roubiliac (was this the Royal Acadamy bust? If not where is it now?)
It would seem that so far there is no documentary evidence of a
marble bust of Roubiliac by Wilton having existed.
I have attempted here to make comparisons between the known portraits
of Roubiliac and the NPG bust (see above) but frankly ( and I know this is subjective) I
cannot see the resemblance.
One very annoying factor in all this is the large number of
portrait busts that have gone missing over the centuries -
two dimensional works of art seem to have been less subject to the
vagaries of fashion and certainly not put out in the garden under acid rain and the crackshots of American GI's billeted in English country houses during the Second World War.
_____________________________
The Putative bust of Roubiliac.
Currently ascribed (in my opinion erroneously) as probably? Roubiliac by Joseph Wilton,
in the National Portrait Gallery.
Currently ascribed (in my opinion erroneously) as probably? Roubiliac by Joseph Wilton,
in the National Portrait Gallery.
I have contacted the NPG but have strangely received rather short shrift.
Malcolm Baker has not seen fit to respond.
Some brief notes compiled by Dana Josephson of the Oxford Universities portraits projecton a visit to the Heinz Archives of the NPG.
I am very grateful to Dana Josephson for taking the time do this for me.
_________________________
Photographs of the NPG bust below taken by the author.
Some brief notes compiled by Dana Josephson of the Oxford Universities portraits projecton a visit to the Heinz Archives of the NPG.
I am very grateful to Dana Josephson for taking the time do this for me.
The first unambiguous provenance reference to this bust is to that in the
collection of James Thomson of Clitheroe, Lancs, sold at the Thomson sale of 18 July 1851, lot 162 (as Voltaire) and bought by dealer Colnaghi in
July 1851 (as 'Voltaire'). No one seems to have investigated this link any further.
The
discussion of earlier provenance is bogged down in 'family tradition' and what
seemed muddled ancestry, chiefly as expounded by Mrs Esdaile in 1926 and by a
distant Roubiliac relation, Anthony Lousada, in 1968.
Whilst one can only commend Mrs Esdaile for her continued interest and writings on 18th Century sculpture, it is very difficult to take much of her jottings too seriously. Her Roubiliac published 1928 Oxford University Press is still the standard work, although an up date is expected imminently from Malcolm Baker. (Don't hold your breath!)
I have in my own way, attempted in this blog to update Mrs Esdailes work myself albeit in a somewhat sporadic fashion.
Whilst one can only commend Mrs Esdaile for her continued interest and writings on 18th Century sculpture, it is very difficult to take much of her jottings too seriously. Her Roubiliac published 1928 Oxford University Press is still the standard work, although an up date is expected imminently from Malcolm Baker. (Don't hold your breath!)
I have in my own way, attempted in this blog to update Mrs Esdailes work myself albeit in a somewhat sporadic fashion.
______________________
Terence Hodgkinson (1913 - 1999) commented to Kerslake in 1971:
'I am now certain in my own mind that this
is not a self-portrait. If it represents Roubiliac, it cannot be by him. What
French or English sculptor of this period ever modelled and carved his own
portrait? (see my note below) I cannot think of any. Just consider the technical difficulty of
modelling oneself from a mirror. On the other hand, sculptures of artists by
their friends formed a well-known type - from Coysevox onwards. Wilton is
known to have portrayed Roubiliac at the right time (near the end of his life)
and Wilton was the best marble-carver of this date in England, apart from
Roubiliac himself. I do not think you should go head-over-heels for Wilton in
the catalogue; but I believe you should mention the unlikelihood that it is a
self-portrait and should stress the fact that the vanished Wilton bust is the
only sculpted portrait of Roubiliac to be recorded.
"I apologise for hardening
my attitude on this. I looked at the bust itself again last week and I think
that Wilton is really probable.'
Hodgkinson was obviously not aware of the self portrait busts by Michael Rysbrack or by Thomas Banks as noted in the Universal Magazine of September 1791 (see below).
Also in 1971, Kerslake asked Margaret Whinney what her
reaction would be 'to the idea that our Roubiliac "self" portrait
might really be the missing portrait by Wilton. As far as I know there is no
firm evidence that Roubiliac ever took a self portrait. Can you think of any
portrait sculptor of his day who did?'
He noted that Mrs Whinney 'seemed
inclined to agree to a tentative attribution to Wilton'.
Much later, in 1985, there is an internal memorandum
referring to photos of the bust taken during conservation. The writer mentioned
the 'suggestion that the slight pitting visible in [the] photographs between
the eyebrow and the hairline was a deliberate act on the part of the sculptor
to represent the condition of the sitter's skin. The same effect is to be found
on the neck.'
For an obituary of Terence Hodgkinson see -
https://www.theguardian.com/news/1999/oct/14/guardianobituaries
For an obituary of Terence Hodgkinson see -
https://www.theguardian.com/news/1999/oct/14/guardianobituaries
Photographs of the NPG bust below taken by the author.
This extract below from the NPG website.
The following text is from the National Portrait Gallery
collection catalogue from -
Once called Voltaire and then Folkes, [1] identification of
NPG 2145, though not entirely conclusive, rests on comparison with portraits of
known authenticity and the supposed family likeness noted by Dominic Colnaghi
after he had acquired the bust.
When the sculptor's granddaughter visited his
premises soon after, she was apparently received with the words: 'There is no
need to ask what you have come about, Madam; the likeness is so unmistakable.'
[2] The bust was then sold, as announced in The Athenaeum of 3 January 1852, to
Francis Roubiliac Conder, great-grandson of the sitter.
(The silvery tongued Antique Dealer is not a recent phenomenon! my view).
When last at Sotheby's
in 1926, it was still described as a self-portrait and remained, after
acquisition by the NPG, so attributed until now.
Although it is rare for a sculptor to take a bust of
himself, Mrs Esdaile accepts the family tradition that Roubiliac executed a
self-portrait which was exhibited anonymously and also sold anonymously. [3]
While there were several items in the sculptor's posthumous sale called, 'mask
of Mr. Roubiliac's', none is specifically described as a self-portrait. On the
other hand, a self-portrait in oils is mentioned by Nollekens in the second
sale, 11 June 1762. [4]
The care-worn features shown in NPG 2145, reminiscent
of the oil by Soldi of 1751, accord well with the concept of a late date, and
the dress, natural hair and unbuttoned shirt, with the portrayal of an artist.
A 'Marble Busto' by Roubiliac, exhibited at the Society of
Artists in 1760 (86) and 'A Bust' exhibited in 1761 (153) previously associated
by Mrs Esdaile with the self-portrait, have now been identified from
contemporary sources as Dr Frewin and Lord Ligonier. [5]
In 1761 Roubiliac also
exhibited a bust of Wilton (154) and Wilton exhibited 'A Bust of Mr. Roubiliac'
(167) and 'Ditto in marble of Oliver Cromwell' (168).
Now that Joseph Wilton is
better known, it could well be that NPG 2145 is a particularly good example of
his work, [6] perhaps the bust exhibited in 1761 or, since 'marble' is
specified only for Cromwell, more probably a version of it. ‘Mr. Roubilliac by
Mr. Wilton', [7]lot 8 under 'BUSTS in Plaister', 2nd day of the Roubiliac sale,
13 May 1762, may well be the plaster exhibited the previous year. As the Wilton
bust was owned by Roubiliac, it may have been mistaken for a self-portrait.
Condition: slight cracks at the back of the shoulder and
side of the neck, left.
Collections: presented, 1927, by the National Art-Collection
Fund; from the James Thomson collection at Sotheby's, 18 July 1851, lot 162, as
Voltaire, bought Colnaghi's, from whom purchased by the sitter's great-grandson
Francis Roubiliac Conder; sold by the latter's great-nephew Dr A.F.R. Conder,
[8] Sotheby's, 3 December 1926, bought Shilliter.
A detailed study appears in the biography by Mrs Esdaile.
The first certain datable portrait is one noted by Vertue in November, 1751,
‘lately Mr Rubilliac the Statuary, his picture painted by Mr Soldi' [10] but an
enamel attributed to Lens who died 1740, in the collection, 1928, of Dr Bellamy
Gardner, is surely earlier.
A signed version of the portrait by Soldi in which
the sitter is at work on the figure of Charity for the Montagu tomb in Warkton
Church, was acquired, 1914, by Dulwich College [11] from C. Fairfax Murray.
The
version signed and dated 1757/8 owned by the Garrick Club (601) showing the
sculptor working on a bust of Garrick [12] is evidently the portrait, the anonymous
property, sketched by Scharf at Christie's, 3 March 1883, lot 84. [13]
A pastel
by an unknown artist, at Christie's, 20 March 1953, lot 53, attributed by the
sitter's great-grandson to Cotes but surely too powerful for this artist, may
be the pastel exhibited by Vispré at the Society of Artists in 1760 (63): 'Mr.
Vispré. A celebrated painter in crayons, has two portraits: one of them the
famous sculptor Roubiliac, the man himself alive, breathing and just going to
speak; most admirable! and himself never cut in marble a better . . .'. [14]
The next dated work is the bust by Wilton exhibited in 1761,
discussed under NPG 2145, and the oil by Carpentiers (NPG 303) probably
exhibited in the same year.
A self-portrait, perhaps the 'Portrait in oil, his
first attempt', also exhibited in 1761 (64), [15]was last heard of when reported
by Horace Walpole in the possession of Mr Scott of Crown Court: 'a sketch of
Roubiliac's head in oil by himself, which he painted a little before his
death'. [16] A lost portrait by Hudson is implied by lot 6, 2nd day of his
sale, Christie's, 25 and 26 February 1785: 'Mr. Hudson. Portraits of Roubiliac
and Faber.' [17]
Notes:
1. First described as Voltaire in the manuscript catalogue,
Sotheby's, 18 July 1851, lot 162; the Athenaeum, 19 and 26 July 1851 named it
as Folkes, but Colnaghi, the purchaser at Sotheby's, confirmed that he had
bought it as a self-portrait.
2. Esdaile, p.192.
3. Ibid, p.191.
4. Nollekens and His Times . . . J.T. Smith, ed. W. Whitten,
1920, II, p.37; summary in Esdaile, pp.229-30; no complete catalogue known.
5. Esdaile letter, The Times, 22 December 1926, and W.T.
Whitley, unpublished letters 29 December 1926 and 7 January 1927, NPG archives.
6. T.W.I. Hodgkinson, verbal.
7. Esdaile, p.221.
8. Correspondence in 1968, NPG archives, with his descendant
Anthony Lousada for whom a bronze of the bust was then made.
9. Neale, VIII, no.36 (98).
10. Vertue, III, p.159.
11. Exh. ‘Italian Art and Britain', RA, 1960 (155). In 1859
owned by J. Matthews, Birmingham, by whom it had been bought 'some 12 or 14
years ago from white', SSB, LIV, p.105 and Matthews’ letter, 11 August, 1859,
NPG archives; Esdaile p.190 and note.
12. Same type as bust of Garrick attributed to Roubiliac
(NPG 707A), Adams, 1936, p.184 (601).
13. SSB, 105, p.49A. For the earlier history of this or the
Dulwich version, see Connoisseur,vol.186, 1974, p.181.
14. Imperial Magazine, or Complete Monthly
Intelligensia,1760, p.246; compare with the Vispre of Mde. Roubiliac, Esdaile,
pl.xlv.
15. Esdaile, p.148.
16. Anecdotes, III, p.759 and note 2, the portrait
mistakenly equated with that of the sitter's father-in-law, lot 88 of the sale,
12 May 1762, cp Esdaile, p.221.
17. Esdaile, p.171.
___________________________
The so called Louis Francois Roubiliac. Enamel.
Attributed to Bernard Lens (d. 1740).
In the collection of Dr Bellamy Gardner in 1928.
This Scan from Early Georgian Portraits.
John Kerslake, Oxford University Press. pub. 1977.
I am reliably informed that this portrait is in English private collection.
see above - this is not Roubiliac.
___________________
Louis Francois Roubiliac.
Attributed recently to François-Xavier Vispré, active 1730–1790.
Formerly attributed to Francis Cotes, RA, (1726–1770).
Pastel.
62.2 x 54.6 cms.
Paul Mellon Collection, Yale Centre for British Art
Yale suggests c.1760?
The terra-cotta sculpture on which Roubiliac leans bears a resemblance to the head of the Britannia figure in the
sculptor's 1753 monument to Admiral Sir Peter Warren in Westminster Abbey; it
was also described as the head of Medusa by a nineteenth-century reviewer.
The portrait has been attributed recently
to François-Xavier Vispré, a fellow-Huguenot and close friend and neighbour of
Roubiliac.
Although stylistic comparison with known works by Vispré has not
been conclusive, circumstantial detail makes the attribution seem very likely.
Vispré exhibited a pastel of Roubiliac at the Society of Artists in London in 1760: Mr Vispré, a celebrated painter in crayons has two portraits : one of them the famous sculptor Roubiliac, the man himself alive breathing and just going to speak: most admirable..... from Imperial Magazine or Complete Monthly Intelligensia 1760, p.246.
Vispré exhibited a pastel of Roubiliac at the Society of Artists in London in 1760: Mr Vispré, a celebrated painter in crayons has two portraits : one of them the famous sculptor Roubiliac, the man himself alive breathing and just going to speak: most admirable..... from Imperial Magazine or Complete Monthly Intelligensia 1760, p.246.
- and this may have been the portrait above.
Yale Centre for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection.
__________________________
Louis Francois Roubiliac.
Andrea Soldi.
97.5 x 83 cms.
Oil on canvas.
Inscribed A. Soldi / Pinx. Ao. 1751.
One
of the two versions known of this subject was (with the companion portrait of the sculptor Michael Rysbrack)
sold at London, Christie's, Sir Henry Gott sale, 24 Feb. 1810, lot 26;
Brimingham, Matthews, 1854; Charles Fairfax Murray; Fairfax Murray Gift, 1911.
Fairfax Murray Gift, 1911.
Dulwich Picture Gallery.
A Florentine, Andrea Soldi (c.1703-1771) came to England
c.1736, when British portraiture still owed much to the tradition of artists
like Sir Godfrey Kneller and Sir Peter Lely. The arrival of Soldi's European
style led to a fresher and more informal portrayal of sitters, and Soldi work
was in high demand amongst such important personages as the Dukes of Beaufort
and Manchester.
However, Soldi's success amongst such aristocratic patrons was
soon to decline, when in 1744 his extravagant spending landed him in debtors'
prison. His contemporary, George Vertue, recorded that Soldi "was willing
to be thought a Count or Marquis, rather than an excellent painter - such idle
vanitys has done him no good."
Painted in 1751, Soldi's
portrait captures the sculptor at work on a preparatory model of a figure of
Charity for a monument to the Duke of Montagu in the church of Warkton,
Northamptonshire.
_____________________________
Louis Francos Roubiliac.
Andreas Soldi.
Oil on Canvas.
Garrick Club.
Height:
112.4cm Width: 91.5cm.
Inscription/signature
"Andrea Soldi / Pinxt ft / 1757 / 8" (grey paint
b. r.)
Provenance -
Presented by Alderson Burrell Horne, 1909.
1757.
Garrick Club.
__________________________
Louis François Roubiliac.
by Adrien Carpentiers (Carpentière, Charpentière).
Oil on canvas,
dated 1762.
49 1/2 in. x 39 1/2 in. (1257 mm x 1003 mm).
Purchased, 1870.
NPG 303
National Portrait Gallery.
If the date was added later, this may be the 'half length of
Mr Roubiliac' exhibited by Carpentiers at the Society of Artists 1761 (8).
Roubiliac died 11 January 1762 and the quality of NPG 303 suggests it is
unlikely to be a repetition.
The terracotta of his statue of Shakespeare commissioned by Garrick, now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, is dated 1757; the marble passed on the death of Mrs Garrick to the British Museum.
The terracotta of his statue of Shakespeare commissioned by Garrick, now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, is dated 1757; the marble passed on the death of Mrs Garrick to the British Museum.
A version
of NPG 303 without date or signature, owned in 1931 by Kenneth Sanderson, is
apparently the source of the mezzotint by D. Martin engraved 1765, when in the
possession of R. Alexander of Edinburgh (see the mezzotint below).
Both show a large pair of callipers on
the stand in addition to the two small tools shown in NPG 303. A number of
scholars have taken this to be a repetition.
Condition: minor retouchings have discoloured, a possible
pentiment on upper right forearm; surface cleaned, 1895.
Collections: bought 1870, from Mrs J. Noseda; presumably from
the collection of General Durant of Tong Castle, Shropshire, who purchased the
site in 1764, of an older castle there;
Listed, 1825, as in the possession of his
son; [9] at Christie's sale, 1856, bought in; Tong Castle sale, Christie's, 20
April 1870, lot 42, bought Mrs J. Noseda.
Engraved: the type engraved by David Martin, 1765 (CS 6)(see below) and
Thomas Chambars (O'D 2) (see below)
Louis Francois Roubiliac.
David Martin (1737 - 1797).
After Carpentier
Mezzotint
32.7 x 25.4 cms.
Mezzotint
32.7 x 25.4 cms.
National Galleries of Scotland.
Info and image from:
https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/43077/louis-francois-roubiliac-1695-1762-french-sculptor?artists%5B15164%5D=15164&search_set_offset=22
_____________________________________
Of Tangential interest - For Roubiliac's Lay Figure see
Thomas Banks and the bust described as possibly Roubiliac in the NPG.
I have cheated here by straightening the nose in the engraving a little with the use of Photoshop.
Comparison Photographs of a Drawing of Thomas Banks with the putative bust of Roubiliac.
Comparison photographs of the bust and the Portrait of Banks by James Northcote (1746 - 1831).
see brief notes below from the Royal Academy website.
________________________
___________________
For more on Banks see -
David Martin was born in Anstruther, Fife, the son of a
schoolmaster. He trained under Allan Ramsay, working in his fellow Scot's
London studio from about 1752. In 1755 he joined Ramsay in Rome and probably
returned with him to London in 1757, working as his chief assistant, producing
copies of state portraits. He settled in Edinburgh in the mid 1780s where his
successful portrait practice functioned as a key link between his master,
Ramsay, and Henry Raeburn. One of Martin's earliest independent works is a
portrait of Benjamin Franklin (1767), which now hangs in The White House,
Washington.
Info and image from:
https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/43077/louis-francois-roubiliac-1695-1762-french-sculptor?artists%5B15164%5D=15164&search_set_offset=22
_____________________________________
Louis François Roubiliac.
by Thomas Chambers (Chambars),
after Adrien Carpentiers
(Carpentière, Charpentière).
Line engraving,
Published 1762.
6 3/4 in. x 5 1/4 in. (172 mm x 134 mm) plate size;
7 in. x
5 3/8 in. (177 mm x 138 mm) paper size.
National Portrait Gallery.
________________________
The two Missing Portraits of Roubiliac.
________________________
The two Missing Portraits of Roubiliac.
A self portrait perhaps the portrait in oil, his first attempt" also exhibited in 1761, was last heard of when reported by Horace Walpole as in the possession of Mr Scott of Crown Court: a sketch of Roubiliac's head in oil painted by himself before his death, which he painted a little before his death.
A lost portrait by Thomas Hudson is implied by Lot 6, 2nd day of the Hudson sale at Christie's, 25 and 26 February, 1785: Mr Hudson. Portraits of Roubiliac and Faber. (Esdaile).
Information above from Early Georgian Portraits. John Kerslake, Oxford University Press. pub. 1977.
I very much look forward to seeing both of these when they reappear.
___________________________
Of Tangential interest - For Roubiliac's Lay Figure see
__________________________________
Thomas Banks and the bust described as possibly Roubiliac in the NPG.
Here follows a tentative, alternative identification of the NPG bust.
A bust of Banks was included in his posthumous sale by Christie's 22 May 1805:
Lot 40 - "Bust of Mr Banks unknown" with two others.
The inclusion of the word 'unknown' suggests that it was perhaps not the bust in the engraving in the European Magazine depicted below, which is possibly a self portrait, but this needs to be clarified.
This is dangerous territory and comparisons like this can be very subjective and even subject to wishful thinking! I don't think this is the case here!
A bust of Banks was included in his posthumous sale by Christie's 22 May 1805:
Lot 40 - "Bust of Mr Banks unknown" with two others.
The inclusion of the word 'unknown' suggests that it was perhaps not the bust in the engraving in the European Magazine depicted below, which is possibly a self portrait, but this needs to be clarified.
This is dangerous territory and comparisons like this can be very subjective and even subject to wishful thinking! I don't think this is the case here!
The bust depicted in the stipple engraving below has disappeared.
Thomas Banks (1735 -1805).
Self Portrait Bust.
Stipple engraving.
Drawn and engraved by John Conde.
203 x 130 mm.
Illustration from the "European Magazine",
"Drawn and Engraved by I. Conde, from a Model of T. Banks / Publish'd as
the Act directs Aug. 1. 1791 by J. Sewell, Cornhill".
National Galleries of Scotland.
_________________________
This bust depicted above has disappeared and I can find no further references to it or any other bust of Thomas Banks beyond a letter from Bank's daughter Lavinia Forster to Allan Cunningham, 12 February 1830.
"There is a bust of my father, I should think, among the models at Mr Chantry's".
_________________________
Comparison photograph of the stipple engraving of Thomas Banks with the putative marble bust.
I have cheated here by straightening the nose in the engraving a little with the use of Photoshop.
But the shape of his nose is confirmed by other portraits (see below).
It is unfortunate that we cannot see more of the ear in the engraving, which might have helped to clinch the argument.
For me the shape of the double chin, lips and the philtrum and the creases beside his eyes looks fairly convincing.
The bust depicted in the European magazine has disappeared.
Julius Bryant tells me he knows of mention of a plaster bust of Banks (also in an unknown location).
Comparison Photographs of a Drawing of Thomas Banks with the putative bust of Roubiliac.
Banks began his studies as an apprentice to William Barlow, a mason and woodcarver,
and spent his evenings studying drawing. Following this Banks began life
drawing classes at St Martin’s Lane Academy.
The Vand A suggest he worked in the studio of Peter Scheemakers.
see https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O248787/alderman-john-boydell-lord-mayor-bust-banks-thomas-ra/
It is thought that by 1769 he was
employed as an assistant to the sculptor Richard Hayward.
The same year he was
admitted to the Royal Academy Schools where he went on to win the Rome
scholarship, the first sculptor to do so.
He travelled to the Italian capital
in 1772, returning to England in 1779.
Comparison photographs of the bust and the Portrait of Banks by James Northcote (1746 - 1831).
see brief notes below from the Royal Academy website.
________________________
________________________
European Magazine, July 1790.
___________________
For more on Banks see -
Apollo Magazine 2005, Article by Julius Bryant.
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Thomas+Banks%27s+missing+%27Cupid%27%3A+the+sculptor+Thomas+Banks+is...-a0128792200
_______________________
Just in case anyone thinks I was being disingenuous about the shape of his nose!
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Thomas+Banks%27s+missing+%27Cupid%27%3A+the+sculptor+Thomas+Banks+is...-a0128792200
_______________________
Just in case anyone thinks I was being disingenuous about the shape of his nose!
I am including here some further portraits of Thomas Banks (below).
Thomas Banks.
Richard Cosway.
Undated.
British Museum.
He later studied modelling with Peter Scheemakers, where he
met the sculptor Joseph Nollekens. In the early 1760s he took life-classes at
the St Martin’s Lane Academy and won prizes from the Society of Arts for his
sculptures on historical subjects.
In 1769 he entered the Royal Academy Schools
and three years later he won a gold medal and a scholarship to study in Rome,
where he stayed for the next seven years.
He returned to England with his
family as well as that of the talented nineteen-year-old artist Maria Hadfield,
whose mother planned to launch her on the London art world.
In January 1781
Hadfield married Richard Cosway at St George’s, Hanover Square, with Banks
acting as a formal witness. The Cosways and the Banks family were to remain
close friends. Evidence of this is provided by Banks’s daughter, Lavinia
Forster, who in her letter to the art critic Allan Cunningham of 1 March 1830
wrote that her father ‘was in the habit of passing his evenings frequently with
Cosway, and enjoying with him the inspection of his valuable portfolios of
ancient drawings’ (Bell 1938, pp.23-5).
Both Banks and Cosway were notable
connoisseurs, assembling significant collections of Old Master drawings for
their portfolios, with Cosway amassing 2,672 works mostly by Italian
sixteenth-century and Netherlandish seventeenth-century masters.
Banks’s
friendship with Cosway extended to his being commissioned by the latter to
sculpt a fireplace after a drawing by the miniaturist – with a female head as the
sun - for the principal drawing-room on the first floor of Cosways’ residence
at 20 Stratford Place, just off Oxford Street (Banks 1938, p.91; Lloyd 2004)
Text and image from:
_________________________
Thomas Banks.
George Dance.
Drawing.
8 July 1794.
British Museum.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=750268&partId=1&searchText=roman+republican+portraits&page=2
_______________
Thomas Banks.
George Dance.
Dated February 1793.
Pencil and black chalk.
226 x 182 mm.
Royal Academy.
https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/portrait-of-thomas-banks-r-a
Comparing the NPG Marble bust and the Royal Academy Sketch by Dance of 1792.
__________________
Comparison of the BM's 22 June 1804 Flaxman drawing of Banks with the Putative NPG Roubiliac bust.
Not conclusive - Flaxman's drawing is very loose but I include it here because it includes details of the ears.
__________________
Thomas Banks.
John Flaxman RA. (1755 - 1826).
black chalk on paper.
inscribed 1804.
Dimension(s):
height, 178, mm.
width, 210, mm.
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.
Image and text courtesy Fitzwilliam Musum
Acquisition: given; 1916; Charles Fairfax Murray.
Provenance:
John Flaxman, R.A. (d. 1826); Flaxman sale (remainder of his
collection), Christie's, 11 April 1862, lot 450, bt. Mr Kibble; sold at
Hodgson's, 25 January 1905, lot 372, bt. Quaritch; acquired from them by C.F.
Murray, 1910
Notes:
(G.F. Bell wrote 14 March 1935: "I have come across
some correspondence of Bank's daughter relating to your drawing and another by
Flaxman, dated June 22nd 1804, which is still in possession of my cousin, the
senior member of Banks's family".
Photograph of portrait drawing of Banks
in album inscribed: Drawn from life by Mr Flaxman / June 22nd 1804. Note for
Cunningham's 'Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters Sculptors and
Architects;, 1830, subsequently in the possession of Sir Edward Poynter P.R.A.,
then belonged to Sir Hught Poynter, Bart., Sydney, N.S.W. (Now in B.M.
1965-12-11.33))
Inscription(s):
upper right; black chalk; 18
lower left; black chalk; T. Banks. R.a.
verso, lower left; black chalk; Thos: Banks - 1804
______________________
Thomas Banks.
John Flaxman.
Height: 266 millimetres Width: 243 millimetres
British Museum
Inscribed and dated in graphite: "Drawn from life by
Mr. Flaxman June 22d. 1804."
Three separate labels are attached to the mount; the second
gives just the title and artist in what appears to be a nineteenth-century hand
and the third is a label of the framemaker Lambert of Knightsbridge.
The first
label has the following text: " [6. or E.?] Poynter, Heirlooms. / T. Banks
R.A. by J. Flaxman R.A. / No 5."
Curator's comments -
Flaxman executed many portrait drawings of
his family and friends (other examples in the BM collection being those of
Matilda Lowry 1996,0928.1 and 2). The majority of them show the sitter's head
and shoulders, as in this drawing.
Another, very similar, sketch of Banks by
Flaxman is included in an album of portrait drawings by the younger sculptor in
the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; the Fitzwilliam drawing appears less
detailed and Banks's expression is sterner. (See the illustration above).
The sale of Sir Edward Poynter's fine collection of Old
Master drawings occurred in 1918, but there were no examples of the British
school listed in the catalogue.
Many of the other lots, however, were given as
having come from the collection of Thomas Banks, which may explain what appears
to have been Poynter's ownership of this drawing, as he was descended from
Banks through his mother. C. F. Bell was the son of Edward Poynter's sister,
Clara Bell.
Image and text courtesy British Museum website -
see -
________________________
Comparison of the BM's 22 June 1804 Flaxman drawing of Banks with the Putative NPG Roubiliac bust.
Not conclusive - Flaxman's drawing is very loose but I include it here because it includes details of the ears.
It should be born in mind that the bust could easily have been carved some thirty years beforehand.
Allowances perhaps should also be made for the difficulties of sculpting a self portrait - of being able to see ones profile - use of mirrors and sketches would be needed.
I was once informed by a curator at the the Yale Centre for British Art when researching the Roubiliac busts of Pope, that ears are like fingerprints and do not change with age (unless you are a Rugby player).
_________________________
Thomas Banks.
_________________________
Thomas Banks.
James Northcote RA (1746 - 1831).
1792.
Royal Academy.
Notes above courtesy the Royal Academy website.
see - https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/portrait-of-thomas-banks-r-a-1
________________________________
The Plaster Life Masks of Thomas Banks.
The Soane Museum Life Mask of Thomas Banks.
see - http://collections.soane.org/object-m293
____________________________________
The Royal Academy Plaster Life Mask of Thomas Banks.
A Life Mask of Thomas Banks.
Bequeathed by his daughter Mrs Lavinia Forster in 1858.
Royal Academy.
James Northcote RA and Thomas Banks RA (1735–1805) were
longstanding friends, having first met in Rome as students in 1777. Banks had
been awarded the Royal Academy’s two-year Travelling Scholarship in 1772 and
they both returned to London in the early 1780s.
At first Northcote struggled
to make a living as a portrait painter, but after 1784 found more success with
history painting. In 1792 Northcote painted not only this fine portrait of his
friend but also another of Banks’s wife and daughter.
On his return from Italy Banks gained many commissions for
church memorials and was elected a Royal Academician in 1785. However his
reputation as a committed democrat and supporter of the French Revolution
adversely affected his career, destroying his hopes of election to the
Keepership of the Royal Academy Schools and even leading to arrest on a charge
of treason in 1794.
Notes above courtesy the Royal Academy website.
see - https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/portrait-of-thomas-banks-r-a-1
________________________________
The Plaster Life Masks of Thomas Banks.
Although we have no archive information about the history of
this mask there is another example in the Royal Academy of Arts, London, (see below) which
was presented by Banks' daughter Lavinia Forster in the 1850s.
Whilst Soane acquired this example before his death in 1837 it is possible that it came from the same source as he acquired various sculptures by Banks indirectly from Mrs Forster in 1834. The RA example is dated to the 1790's and this identical one must have been made at the same time.
Whilst Soane acquired this example before his death in 1837 it is possible that it came from the same source as he acquired various sculptures by Banks indirectly from Mrs Forster in 1834. The RA example is dated to the 1790's and this identical one must have been made at the same time.
Photograph and text above courtesy the Soane Museum Website
see - http://collections.soane.org/object-m293
____________________________________
The Royal Academy Plaster Life Mask of Thomas Banks.
A Life Mask of Thomas Banks.
Bequeathed by his daughter Mrs Lavinia Forster in 1858.
Plaster.
229 x 165 mm.
They say c. 1790.
Image courtesy Royal Academy website.
https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/art-artists/work-of-art/life-mask-of-thomas-banks-r-a
___________________________
Comparison photographs of the Royal Academy life mask of Thomas Banks,
and the NPG Putative Roubiliac.
Comparison photographs of the Royal Academy life mask of Thomas Banks,
and the NPG Putative Roubiliac.
As we do not have dates for either of these faces, there could easily be at least twenty years between them.
The creases by the eyes and across the top of the nose appear very similar.
and the NPG Putative Roubiliac.
As we do not have dates for either of these faces, there could easily be at least twenty years between them.
The creases by the eyes and across the top of the nose appear very similar.
If the bust is a self portrait by Banks which is currently my contention, then perhaps a little bit of vanity by the sculptor may be excused.
By no means conclusive but an interesting exercise!
___________________________
The same exercise again using the photograph from Annals of Thomas Banks by CF Bell.
__________________________
The same exercise with the life Mask of Banks at the Soane Museum and the putative Roubiliac.
____________________________
_________________________
By no means conclusive but an interesting exercise!
___________________________
The same exercise again using the photograph from Annals of Thomas Banks by CF Bell.
__________________________
The same exercise with the life Mask of Banks at the Soane Museum and the putative Roubiliac.
____________________________
The Royal Academy Life Mask, the NPG Marble Bust, and the European Magazine stipple engraving of 1791 of the Banks self portrait bust.
Allowances should also be made for the weight of the plaster on the face of the life mask, which will have the affect of pushing down the flesh.
To me this is the most conclusive evidence that the National Portrait bust now labelled as PROBABLY ROUBILIAC is the missing self portrait by Thomas Banks of himself.
_________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment