RKD STUDIES

Lely and Kneller were the pre-eminent English portraitists of the second half of the 17th century. While we do not wish to present them in this study as representatives of Dutch art, their Dutch origins and training may nevertheless have contributed to the close similarities that emerged between the English and Dutch styles of portrait painting during the 17th century. The large number of Dutch artists whom we have mentioned strengthened the Dutch element in English painting. To conclude this section on portrait painting, all that remains is to illustrate the impact of the Dutch invasion on purely English portrait painting among the later Stuart painters.

Van Dyck’s art lived on not only in Lely’s works, but also – thanks to his intermediary role – in the work of such next-generation painters as John Riley (1646-1691) and John Greenhill (1642-1676).¹ In Greenhill’s work there are also clear links with Dutch portraiture of the 1660s and 1670s, as seen in paintings by Bartholomeus van der Helst and Nicolaes Maes. The portrait of a lady [1] in the collection of Edward Marsh can no longer be attributed to Greenhill, however, since, as Collins Baker established, it was painted by Pieter Borsselaer.² In any event, this example serves to highlight the stylistic affinity between a Dutch emigré and an English painter. Greenhill’s etching of 1667 and his portrait of William Cowper (collection of Lord Desborough, Panshanger) were both greatly influenced by Dutch art [2-3].³

1
Pieter Borselaer (I)
Portrait of an unknown woman, c. 1665-1679
London (England), Tate Gallery, inv./cat.nr. N06175

In some works by artists who by their date of birth belonged to the reign of Charles I but who by virtue of their extended activity continued into the late Stuart period there appeared a combination of van Dyckian echoes and the late period style that was determined by Kneller’s art. This was the case with the little person Richard Gibson (1605/16-1690), who was a page at the court of Charles I and learned to paint under Frantz Klein (Francis Cleyn). Gibson arrived at The Hague in 1677 in the entourage of Mary Stuart, whom he taught to paint. There are pastels by him in the style of Hanneman [4] and a number of minor paintings.⁴ The same might be said of Isaac Fuller (c. 1620-1672), although others would dispute that.⁵ Did he perhaps study the works of Joachim von Sandrart?⁶ Theodore Russel (1614-1689), a nephew of Cornelis Jonson van Ceulen, frequently copied works by van Dyck but transformed his style in the Dutch manner that we are familiar with from the work of his uncle [5].⁷ This combination of Dutch earnestness (in the style of Pieter Nason, for instance) and van Dyck elegance is also apparent in the work of such minor artists as Thomas Sadler (1630-c. 1685), James Gandy (1619-1689) and J. Waller (active 1665) [6].⁸

4
Richard Gibson
Portrait of a little girl, dated 1669
London (England), British Museum, inv./cat.nr. 1900,0717.41

We noted earlier that Scotland remained largely uninfluenced by the van Dyck vogue, and the same could be said of the duration of van Dyck compositions.⁹ There was certainly a connection with Dutch prototypes from the first half of the century, but the local tradition could not be ignored either. The self-portrait by John Scougall (1657-1737) in Edinburgh [7] is as earnestly Dutch as portraits by Mierevelt, which is all the more noteworthy, given that he was said to have been a student of Rubens.¹⁰ Other portraits from the later period are more reminiscent of Nicolaes Maes and Pieter Nason. Another artist who hailed from Scotland, where he may have studied under Jamesone, was John Michael Wright (1617-1694). Following a stay in Italy he arrived in London in around 1652, where he rented Lely’s studio in 1685/6.¹¹ His simple, painterly portraits, especially of women, closely resemble those by Dutch artists. The portrait of Princess Elisabeth sitting by a fountain (Kenyon-Slaney auction, London, 10 December 1925, no. 108) [8] could very well have been painted by Maes.¹² However, other portraits by Wright (of [Sir Robert] Rookwood in 1660; collection of Mr. Frederick Duleep Singh [9]; portrait auction, Cologne, 15 May 1924, no. 386; dated 1676 [10]) are very Dutch in the manner of Pieter Nason and Jan de Baen.

7
John Medina (II) after attributed to Daniël Mijtens (I)
Portrait of possibly John Scougall, Lord Whitekirk (c. 1600/6-1672)
Edinburgh (city, Scotland), National Galleries Scotland, inv./cat.nr. NG 554

Such striking reminders of Maes can still be found at the start of the 18th century in the work of T. Garrison, a little-known artist who painted the four children of Sir Roger Bradshaigh (collection of the Earl of Crawford, London).¹³ One of their portraits depicts a boy handing a bird a cherry [11].¹⁴ In terms of technique and approach it is so close to Maes that we must assume that the painter had a specific picture by Maes in mind, particularly since his other images are not very Dutch at all. Deserving to be mentioned alongside Maes is Caspar Netscher. Both artists exerted a lasting influence in England through their students and imitators (Pieter Borselaer, Simon van der Does, Johannes van Brandt). The family group portrait of the Duke of Beaufort (collection Duke of Beaufort) [12] painted in 1685 by Samuel Browne (active 1680-1691), another largely unknown artist, is very much in the Netscher style.¹⁵ John Smith was familiar with the portrait and entered Browne’s name in his list of Netscher imitators.A pair of portraits of Prince George of Denmark and Queen Anne, which are inscribed ‘C. S. Browne’ and dated 1691, could be by the same artist, although the Dutch style is much less evident.¹⁶ Active in the style of the late Maes and Caspar Netscher were a number of minor talents whose names can quickly be listed: William Reader (died c. 1680), a pupil of Soest: portrait of Robert Plot in Oxford [no. 188] [13] and the portrait of a lady in a London auction of 24 February 1924 [no. 111]) [14]; Alexander Comer (model: Verelst); William Trabute (active 1670-1678); Mary Beale (1633-1699) (also very much in the van Dyck tradition); Thomas Hill (active 1661-1734); John Bullfinch (active 1680-1728) [15] (Luttichuys’ style); William Gandy (c. 1655-1729) (some pictures in the manner of Nicolaes Maes) [16]; and Thomas Murray (1663-1735) (some Dutch reminiscences along with many purely English features). Charles Jervas (c. 1675-1739) really has no place in our study.¹⁷ He only began working after 1700 and the Dutch element in his work lies in its similarity to that of contemporary painters such as Philip van Dijk and Cornelis Troost.

12
Samuel Browne
Portrait of Henry Somerset, 1st Duke of Beaufort (1629-1700) and Mary Somerset, Duchess of Beaufort (1630–1715) and their family, dated 1685
Private collection