admin | 
07 29th, 2009| 
MINIATURES
WHEN, during the last ten years of his life, Holbein painted a series of small circular portraits in opaque watercolour on vellum, he was not so much inventing a new art-form as giving authority to one which had been in the process of evolution for some time. Miniature-portraiture, as we know it, can trace its ancestry to two separate traditions: the tradition of the illuminated manuscript, which flourished in this country and on the Continent throughout the Middle Ages, and the tradition of the portrait-medal, which had its origin in Roman times and was revived in the Renaissance. The fusion of these separate traditions can be seen in the attempts of artists in the latter part of the 15th century to produce small painted portraits which united the portable quality of medals and the jewel-like colour of illuminations. But it was not until Holbein brought his consummate genius to the problem that the tradition can be said to have been firmly established. In a space of a few years Holbein brought to perfection the experiments of his immediate predecessors and set a standard for all those who came after him.
Holbein’s miniatures – or ‘limnings’, as they were called – all belong to his second visit to England: that is, to the period between 1532 and his death in 1543• According to the most recent authorities, not more than a dozen of the limnings sometimes attributed to him can be accepted as authentic; of these the two most readily accessible to the visitor (the Anne of Cleves and the Mrs Pemberton in the Victoria & Albert Museum) are of superlative quality. The characteristics of Holbein’s vision and technique were a minute sensitivity of draughtsmanship, an intense and glowing colour and a completely unflattering psychological penetration into the personality of his sitter. This detailed concentration he combined with a largeness of conception and design which gives a paradoxical monumentality to portraits which average little more than an inch in diameter.
After Holbein’s death there was a short period during which it may have seemed that his challenging example was not to be taken up. But with the maturity of Nicholas Hilliard (1547-1619), any doubts for the future of the art were triumphantly laid to rest. For just as Holbein in his miniatures and his other portraits had preserved for all time the outward appearance of the court of Henry VIII, so Hilliard’s miniatures became the perfect visual counterpart of the age of Elizabeth I. Hilliard was the son of an Exeter goldsmith, and though his work naturally reflects the influence of Holbein and, to a lesser degree, that of other Continental artists, it remained, essentially English. While sharing Holbein’s absorption in the character of his sitter, Hilliard shared with the leading spirits of his age that curious quality which can best be described as a kind of half-frivolous melancholy – the quality which is most familiar from some of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Though it is more evident at some times than at others, this complicated and characteristic sentiment is never far to seek in his miniatures. Hilliard is perhaps best known as the portraitist par excellence of Queen Elizabeth, and from 1584 he was granted the monopoly of the Queen’s portraits ‘in little’. Although lie lived far into the reign of James I, his best work belongs to the Elizabethan period.
Hilliard’s pupil Isaac Oliver (d. 1617) is often spoken of as his rival; in a purely worldly sense he probably was so. But we can now see that the personalities and the achievements of the two artists were quite dissimilar. Though his earlier works may often be confused with those of his master, from about 1590 onwards Oliver developed a vision new to British art. The dramatic lighting which he increasingly brought to bear upon his subjects was, in fact, a reflection of the type of lighting adopted by his Flemish contemporaries in oils, and the naturalism of his modelling can be traced to
the same source. Nevertheless, Oliver was a perfectly inte-
grated artist, and external influences never disfigure his works in their crude state. Just as Hilliard found his ideal milieu in the Elizabethan court, so Oliver found in the court of James I a field of expression for which his talents were by nature adapted. A Huguenot by birth and cosmopolitan by temperament, he also proved an excellent filter through which Continental influences could reach this country.
Both Hilliard and Oliver had sons who practised their fathers’ art. The next important miniaturist to be considered, however, is neither Peter Oliver nor Laurence Hilliard but John Hoskins, an artist who was roughly their contemporary. Hoskins was born in the 159os, and his earliest signed works, which belong to the 1620S, show a natural and attractive development from the art of Hilliard rather than of Oliver. But from the 1630s, when Van Dyck settled in England, a change is seen to come over his work, and Hoskins’ great historical importance consists no less in his becoming, as it were, a diminishing-glass for Van Dyck’s large-scale innovations in English portraiture, than in his carrying on the classic tradition of his predecessor. For a short time the influence of Van Dyck seems to have unsettled Hoskins’ style, but gradually he absorbed and digested it, and the miniatures of his maturity — that is, from about 1635 until his death in 1665 — show an entirely satisfactory fusion of his natural English vision with the baroque qualities of Van Dyck.
Hoskins had two nephews who were brought up under his `care and discipline’. These were Samuel and Alexander Cooper, the first of whom was to become the greatest English miniaturist, if not the greatest English portrait-painter on any scale, of his century. He was born in I 6og and died in 1672. It seems almost certain that his uncle was his teacher as well as his guardian, and it may be that some of his earlier works have become confused with those of the older man. There are, however, a few miniatures by Cooper which can be assigned to the 163os, and from 1642 until his
death there is a coherent body of signed work on which to base our estimate of his achievement. In technique Cooper brought a new freedom of brushwork into miniature-painting. He also introduced a new system of lighting, whereby a single source of illumination threw the modelling of his subject into striking relief. But such technical devices were developed not so much on their own account as in order to assist what seems to have been Cooper’s major preoccupation – the expression of character. In this he was pre-eminently successful; his portraits of Oliver Cromwell, Catherine of Braganza and the young Duke of Monmouth, which cover the range from severity to youthful grace, are among the great European portraits of the century. During the last ten years of his life Cooper was limner to Charles I I, and his high reputation extended far abroad. His elder brother, Alexander, was also a miniaturist. His career is less well documented than that of Samuel, but he is known to have worked much on the Continent, in Holland, and at the court of the King of Bohemia, and h~ is said to have died in Stockholm in 166o. His works are rare but excellent, though he does not seem to have developed along the fully baroque lines of his brother.
Of those who followed the lead of Samuel Cooper the most distinguished artist was Thomas Flatman (163588), who was also a barrister and a poet of some repute. His earlier miniatures, belonging to the 166os, are very much dependent on Cooper. But during the last twenty years of his life a personal brilliance comes into his work, along with a further loosening of brushwork, which enable us to see in him a genuinely original artist. The miniaturists R. and D. Gibson, who may perhaps have been father and son, also reflect many of the same influences and are to be included among those who take their cue from Cooper. This is not so, however, of Nicholas Dixon, who was appointed Court Limner after Cooper’s death. Neither his date of birth nor of death is recorded, but his earliest works belong to the and he is known to have been still living in 1708. In
style Dixon shows little or no dependence upon Cooper, springing, it seems, directly from Hoskins. In vision, however, he came strongly under the influence of Lely’s mannerisms, and this may perhaps help to account for a gradual deterioration in his work.
The miniaturist Lawrence Crosse (d. 1724) was roughly the contemporary of Kneller. He may perhaps have been the son of an earlier miniaturist, P. Cross, who was the first in England to introduce the technical device of occasional stippling, instead of drawing throughout with fine continuous brush-strokes. Lawrence carried this technique even further, and as a result his miniatures have a characteristically powdery appearance which is most attractive. At his best he was very good indeed, and his work forms a fitting conclusion to the first great period of miniature-portraiture in England.
At the beginning of the 18th century portraiture seemed to be suffering a decline, and the art of the miniaturist, no less than that of the full-scale oil-painter, reflected this. The fact that the moment coincided with the introduction of a radically new technique can hardly be said to have simplified the miniaturist’s problem. Up to this point miniatures had continued to be painted in essentially the same way: that is, in more or less opaque water-colour on vellum. But about 1700 the use of ivory was introduced as a base; the introduction is credited to Rosalba Carriers, the Venetian pastellist and miniaturist. The aesthetic advantage of ivory over vellum is that it gives superior luminosity. But in order to exploit this to the full, transparent pigment would have to be used throughout; and during the first part of the century this fact was not realized. Thus, when we look at them from the standpoint of history, the miniatures of Bernard Lens (1682-174o) and of his sons, Andrew Benjamin (1713 ?–after 1779?) and Peter Paul (1714 ? 50?), may perhaps seem unsatisfactory in their somewhat uninventive use of their new medium. Nevertheless, mini-atures of the Lens school have a certain stolid charm, and their literalness of vision, which might easily become pompous if enlarged to the full scale of oil-paintings, has made them attractive tokens of the somewhat stolid society which they mirrored. Contemporary with Bernard Lens was the enamellist C. F. Zincke (1683?-1767), who continued with enormous success the craft which had been perfected in the previous century by Jean Petitot (1607-91).
About the middle of the 18th century the primness of style which we have remarked in Bernard Lens began noticeably to relax, and we find a group of miniaturists at work whose qualities have for too long been underrated. The main characteristics of the miniatures of this period are a smallness of size and an understatement of effect. These qualities have led Mr Graham Reynolds, the most recent writer on the subject, to name them ‘The Modest School’. Such artists as Gervase Spencer (d. 1763), Luke Sullivan (1705-71), Nathaniel Hone, R.A. (1718-84) and Samuel Cotes (1734—r818) all worked mainly within this idiom during the period in question. Although none of them achieved the lightness of touch and the rococo brilliance which was to result from the looser draughtsmanship of their followers, they were capable of a delicacy and a naturalness beyond the scope of their immediate predecessors.
The last thirty years of the 18th century produced the climax of excellence in the miniature painted on ivory. That this period coincided approximately with the great epoch of English portraiture in oils can be held only partly responsible for the efflorescence; for although it would be absurd to maintain that miniature-portraiture pursued its own path independently of large-scale portraiture, nevertheless the greatest miniature-painters, such as Hilliard, Cooper and several who are about to be considered, produced a consistent series of works which can be judged solely on their own merits. It would be truer to say that the same impulse which lay at the root of a flourishing school of oil-portraiture, quickened also the school of miniaturists.
The first miniature-painter in England to embody the later 18th-century virtues was Jeremiah Meyer, R.A. (1735-89), a German who came to England in 1749. He received some instruction in enamel from the elderly Zincke, and began to exhibit in the 176os. From the early 177os he was painting in perfectly transparent water-colours on ivory, and in this medium he developed a linear delicacy and brilliance which had previously been impossible. The result was a remarkable subtlety of modelling and an increased sensitivy of effect in such features as the flesh and hair of his sitters. The fact that an exaggerated heightening of female coiffures occurred during the 1770s may help to account for an increase in the size of miniatures at this time. The miniatures of Meyer were among the earliest to embody this trend. His works are seldom signed, but they may be recognized both for his personal calligraphy of draughtsmanship and for his predilection for pale lavender tints.
Richard Crosse (1742-1810) might appear to represent a transitional stage of development between the innovations of Meyer and the fulfilment and later degeneration of the school, if it were not that his works normally achieve a realization of intention which is complete. Like Meyer, he painted in enamel as well as in water-colour, and, like Meyer, he was master of a calligraphic style of great delicacy. Perhaps the most evident feature of his practice is the greenish-blue colouring which usually pervades his portraits. Crosse exhibited with success from 176o, but during the last twenty years of his life his output steadily declined in quantity.
There follow the three best-known miniaturists of the late 18th and early 19th century. Richard Cosway, R.A.
(1742?-1821), John Smart (1741?-1811) and George
Engleheart (1750-1829) were all of the same generation, and, although their styles were quite distinct, they are normally considered together to form the dominating influence in the late Georgian miniature. The early works of each of these artists already reveal minor mutual diver-genes, and from about 1780 their personal characteristics
were fully formed. Cosway, the best known of the three, obtained the patronage of the Prince of Wales, and the delicate bravura of his manner can be readily associated with the temperament of a fashionable portrait-miniaturist such as he rapidly became. Cosway’s mature miniatures show a striking economy of colour and a sensitive dash of draughtsmanship that tempted many indifferent imitators. The works of his finest period, however (roughly 1785-1805), were, in fact, inimitable and stand amongst the most excellent of the century. Cosway virtually never signed his miniatures on the front, though he often wrote an elaborate Latin inscription on a piece of paper at the back. Thus, miniatures purporting to be by Cosway which have initials or a signature on the front are in the highest degree suspicious.
John Smart, who was Cosway’s approximate contemporary, was master of a very different style. Unlike Cosway, he was not fitted to scale the pinnacles of fashion, and the subtle, meticulous manner which he developed in his earlier works remained his medium of expression for the rest of his life. Smart’s miniatures are nearly all signed on the front with his initials, and dated; and those miniatures which he painted during his ten years’ sojourn in India, between 1785 and 1795, are distinguished by the addition of the letter ‘F. Such systematic habits of documentation are perfectly in accord with his temperament as expressed in his work. His miniatures have a striking charm when one first approaches them – a charm of colour, finesse and elegance – but their hardly varied smoothness and relative lack of characterization reflect a certain prosaic and generalizing quality of vision. A single miniature by Smart produces an immediate and delightful effect, whereas a large group tends to emphasize their sameness. Nevertheless, his exceptional technical accomplishment and his never less than charming gifts entitle him to his place near the head of his profession.
George Engleheart was a few years younger than Cosway and Smart. In his youth he worked for a time in Reynolds’ studio, and his earlier miniatures retain something of the vision of his master, as well as many of the technical characteristics of the ‘Modest School’. During the 1780s, however, he arrived at the distinct and personal style of his middle period, a style which was typified by a brittle and crimped manner of drawing hair and drapery, no less than by the emphatic concentration of the eyes and the effective illusion of a third dimension. Many of Engleheart’s best works belong to this period. Before the end of the century, however, he had developed his third and final manner. The size of his ivory and the scale of his forms increased, and, although his technical excellence remained with him until he died, there is noticeably less distinction of imagination in these later works.
It is impossible here to do more than mention even a very small proportion of those miniaturists of the late 18th century who were contemporaries of, or slightly younger than, the three leading artists just considered. It was a time in which patronage of this art reached its highest intensity, calling forth a multiplicity of minor artists whose individual styles are often difficult to disentangle. Of these, one should first mention Ozias Humphry, R. A. (174.2-1810), who was on occasion capable of reaching the highest contemporary standards; of roughly the same generation, and often met
with, are Samuel Shelley (1750?-1808) and Edward Miles (1752—r828). The brothers Andrew (1763-1837) and Nathaniel (d. 1822 ?) Plimer had considerable reputations in their day, and are still highly esteemed by some collectors. The enamel tradition of Zincke was carried on to the end of the century by Henry Spicer (c. 1743-1804), amongst others.
During the first thirty years of the 19th century some fine miniaturists emerged; but one can also detect in their work the beginnings of a rapid decline in the art. Contemporary taste called for ever larger miniatures and a new solidity of manner ‘founded upon the Great Master’s works’, by which was unfortunately meant the great masters of oil-painting. Works satisfying these conditions were supplied in increasing quantities by the artists who succeeded Cosway and Engle-heart. Such artists as Andrew Robertson (1777-184.5) and Sir W. C. Ross, R.A. (1794-1860) were able to retain some of the essential linear quality which can be seen at the basis of the art of all our great miniaturists, but gradually the art began to succumb to a surfeit of rich colours, gummed Shadows and inappropriate forcefulness. It needed only the invention of photography to deal the final blow.
The literature of British miniature-painting is not a very extensive one. Full bibliographies are contained in two essential books, B. S. Long’s British Miniaturists (London, 1930) and Graham Reynolds’ English Portrait Miniatures (London, 1952). Although foreign miniaturists do not come within the scope of this contribution, Ernst Lemberger’s Meister-miniatures aus Fiinf 7ahrhunderten (Stuttgart, 1911) may be mentioned as providing a helpful introduction to this wider subject.
Jul
29
