«A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick This thesis is made available online and is ...»
Sir Joshua Reynolds, Florentius Vassall with his Daughter, later Mrs fig.90 Russell, oil on canvas, date unknown, Illchester Collection, Holland House, 127 x 101.6 (50 x 40) Sir Joshua Reynolds, James Paine with his son, James, oil on canvas, fig.91 1764, The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 127 x 101.6 (50 x 40) Sir Joshua Reynolds, The Misses Paine, oil on canvas, 1765, Lady Lever fig.92 Gallery, Port Sunlight, 124.5 x 96.5 (49 x 38) Sir Joshua Reynolds, The Misses Paine, oil on canvas, 1765, Lady Lever fig.93 Gallery, Port Sunlight, 124.5 x 96.5 (49 x 38) after restoration William Hogarth, The Graham Children, oil on canvas, 1742, The fig.94 National Gallery, London, 160.3 x 180.9 (63Ys x 711,4) Thomas Gainsborough, The Anist's Daughters chasing a Butterfly, oil on fig.95 canvas, c.1756, The National Gallery, London, 126.4 x 104.8 (49% x 411,4) William Hogarth, The Mackinen Children, oil on canvas, 1747, The fig.96 National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, 180 x 142.9 (701'8 x 561,.-'4) Philip Reinagle, Mrs Congreve with her Children, oil on canvas, 1782, fig.97 The National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, 80.6 x 106 (31% x 41%) Sir Joshua Reynolds, Recovery from Sickness, an Allegory, oil on canvas, fig.98 1768/9, Dulwich Picture Gallery, 70.8 x 60.6 (271'8 x 2318) Johann Zoffany, George, Prince of Wales and Frederick, later Duke of fig.99 York, oil on canvas, c.1765, Royal Collection, Windsor Castle, 111.8 x 127.9 (44 x 50%)
George Romney, Frances Bankes, Lady Brownlow with her Son, the Hon.
fig. 101 John Cust, oil on canvas, 1783, Belton House, 125.7 x 100.3 (49Y2 x 39Y2)
The Dressing Room, Kedleston Hall, Derbyshire fig. 109 Nathaniel Hone, Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Lord Scarsdale with his Wife, fig.110 Lady Caroline Coiyear, oil on canvas, 1761, Kedleston Hall, 264.2 x 181.9 (104 x 71%)
Attributed to Nathaniel Hone, Lady Caroline Colyear, Lady Scarsdale, oil fig. 112 on canvas, 1758, Kedleston Hall, 66.4 x 56.5 (26Ys x 221,4)
Anon., The Representation of the Trial of the Duchess of Kingston at fig. 116 Westminster Hall, engraving, 1776, from The Trial of Robert FeUding Esq... to which is added an Appendix relating to the Indictment instituted against Elizabeth, Duchess of Kingston (London, 1776), The British Museum, London, 18.7 x 15.2 (7% x 6) Attributed to James Gillray, Sir Richard Worse-than-sly, Exposing his fig.117 Wife's Bottom: 0 fyel, engraving, 14 March 1782, The British Museum, London, 30.5 x 22.2 (12 x 8%)
S. Bull after Sir Joshua Reynolds, The Duchess of Kingston, mezzotint fig. 120 engraving, date unknown, 31.4 x 25.1 (12% x 9Y8). Original painting dates from 1740s, current whereabouts unknown.
Anon., No. XXV: Miss S-th and No. XXVI: M- of G-, engravings, 1 fig.121 October 1775, from The Town and Country Magazine; or, Universal Repository of Knowledge, Instruction and Entertainment VII (October 1775), The British Museum, London, 6.7 x 5.7 (2% x 21,4) Anon., Lady Worsley, dressing in the Bathing House, engraving, February fig.122 or March 1782, The British Museum, London, 14.3 x 9.5 (50/8 x 3%)
Anon., A Certain Personage in the Character of a Fool, as he Perform'd fig.125 it at Whitchurch and Elsewhere, engraving, 5 July 1770, from The Oxford Magazine V (1770), The British Museum, London, 14.6 x 9.2 (5% x 3%)
fig.130 George Stubbs, John Musters and the Revd. Philip Story Riding out from the Stable-Block at Colwick Hall, oil on panel, 1777, Private Collection,
100.3 x 124.5 (39Y2 x 49)
S.W. Reynolds after Sir Joshua Reynolds, HRH Anne, Duchess of fig.l32 Cumberland, mezzotint engraving, date unknown, Witt Print Collection, size unknown. Original is oil on canvas, 1773, Waddeson Manor, 236 x 146 (93 x 57Y2) S.W. Reynolds after Sir Joshua Reynolds, HRH Henry, Duke of fig.133 Cumberland, mezzotint engraving, date unknown, Witt Print Collection, size unknown. Original is oil on canvas, 1773, location unknown, 236 x 146 (93 x 57Y2) Thomas Gainsborough, HRH Anne, Duchess of Cumberland, oil on fig.134 canvas, 1777, Royal Collection, Buckingham Palace, 238.1 x 142.2 (93% x 56) Thomas Gainsborough, HRH Henry, Duke of Cumberland, oil on canvas, fig. 135 1777, Royal Collection, Buckingham Palace, 238.1 x 142.2 (93% x 56)
Anon., The Auspicious Marriage, woodcut, 1 January 1779, from The fig. 140 Town and Country Magazine; or, Universal Repository of Knowledge, Instruction and Entertainment X (January 1779), The British Museum, London, 10.8 x 10.2 (4% x 4) J. Mortimer, Iphigenia's Late Procession from Kingston to Bristol. --by fig.141 Chudleigh Meadows, engraving, 16 May 1776, from The Morning Post 16 May 1776, The British Museum, London, 25.1 x 34.3 (9Ys x 13Y2) Anon., ELIZABETH Dutchess Dowager of KINGSTON. Taken at the Bar fig.142 of the House of Lords, on the 15 of April, 1776, mezzotint engraving, 20 May 1776, reproduction in the Heinz Archive, The National Portrait Gallery, London, 36.8 x 27.3 (14Y2 x 10%) Anon., Elizabeth Duchess Dowager of Kingston taken at the Bar of the fig. 143 House of Lords. Apr. 15 1776, mezzotint engraving, 1 May 1776, reproduction in the Heinz Archive, The National Portrait Gallery, London, size unknown
James Gillray, The Fashionable Mamma; or, The Convenience of Modem fig. 145 Dress, hand coloured etching, 15 February 1796, The British Museum, London, 31.4 x 21.9 (12% x 8%)
Anon., The Apotheosis of the Dutchess, engraving, 25 May 1784, The fig. 147 British Museum, London, 20.9 x 31.4 (81A x 12%) Thomas Rowlandson, Political Affection, engraving, 22 April 1784, The fig. 148 British Museum, London, 22.2 x 32.7 (8% x 12Ys) Anon., The Devonshire Amusement, engraving, 24 June 1784, The British fig. 149 Museum, London, 25.1 x 17.8 (9Ys x 7)
I would like to thank the British Academy for awarding me the grant that allowed me to undertake this thesis, the Chelmsford Educational Foundation for an emergency cash injection in the first year and the ASSEC committee at the University of Warwick for funding a trip to the North American Conference for British Studies in 1999.
There are many members of staff at many institutions who have been both
National Art Library; the Victoria and Albert Museum Print Room and the Witt Library at the Courtauld Institute. I would also like to thank the staff of the numerous country houses I have visited over the last three years, in particular, Shelley Fielder at Belton House, Charles Noble and Peter Day at Chatsworth, Jill Banks at Kedleston Hall and Alun Williams at Wilton House.
A timely chat with Dror Wahrman was important in bringing together and refining my ideas in the later stages of writing. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my bosses of the last nine months, Laurence Brockliss and Michael Moss, who have taught me numerous research skills and been sympathetic to my preoccupation with the thesis. Jos Hackforth-Jones has always been kind, offering friendship, advice and lots of teaching experience. The biggest debt of all, of course, goes to my supervisors.
Steve Hindle stepped in after the first year and has been infinitely supportive, rigorous
been my mentor since 1992, when I first came to Warwick as an undergraduate. He taught me a love of all things eighteenth century, not to mention a distaste for all things Thatcherite. He has admirably trod a delicate line between giving me the freedom to develop the project as I saw fit and providing invaluable advice and motivation. His own work has always been an inspiration.
Friends too numerous to name have lent their support. Many thanks to Chloe Underwood, Natasha Eaton and Sally Walder for accompanying me through the trials and tribulations of writing a Ph.D. and always being on the other end of a phone;
Karen Leach for managing to live with me for the last year and always being ready to listen to my moans; Jonathan White for being supportive, reassuring, encouraging and a never ending source of information and ideas.
It is appropriate, having written a Ph.D. on the family, that I have reserved my biggest thank you for my parents. This thesis is for Dad, who has always provided love and support, both emotional and practical. Most of all it is for Mum, who died
Some of the material from chapters one and two appeared in my MA dissertation entitled 'Concordia Discors: Conjugal Discourses of the Eighteenth Century', submitted at the University of Warwick, History of Art Department in 1996. I declare, however, that none of the material in this thesis has been previously published in any form. This dissertation is all my own work and has not been submitted for a degree at
This thesis analyses eighteenth-century portraiture within the context of 'norms' propagated in contemporary prescriptive and fictional literature, 'norms' which overlay a heterogeneous reality. The aspirant portraitist had to accord with the desire of sitters to be depicted in a manner that would receive approbation. Thus, disparate relationships were pictorially subsumed within affectionate ideals that burgeoned in the mid eighteenth century, stimulated by the cult of sensibility and disseminated through an expanding body of literature to an expanding readership. However, these did not displace more 'traditional' concerns, but appeared alongside continuing pictorial emphases on patriarchy, hierarchy and dynastic continuity.
The introduction outlines the historiography and methodology and provides a detailed summary of each chapter. Chapter one examines the emergence of the companionate marital portrait, together with pictorial condemnations of arranged and romantic unions. Chapter two argues that this new emphasis on affection did not displace patriarchy. Pendants continued to demarcate masculine and feminine domains whilst double portraits emphasised those domains as complementary, but unequal. Chapter three discusses the pictorial and literary sentimentalisation of motherhood and argues that condemnations of female display were acknowledged in portraits of engrossed and self-effacing mothers. Chapter four counters that the sentimentalisation of the patriarch was limited by a continuing preoccupation with his pre-eminence and that later images of playful children maintained earlier concerns with age and gender hierarchies and 'futurity'. Chapter five argues that both an emphasis on heirs and anxiety over the implications of high infant mortality for dynastic succession remained constant. The contextualisation of portraits within the home also reveals an emphasis on unbroken lineage. Chapter six examines satires of transgressions of ideal familial relations by members of a supposedly debauched aristocracy. However, these aristocrats sometimes countered such attacks with portraits emphasising status and domestic virtue. The conclusion summarises the arguments and discusses their implications for debates over class.
FA MILY AND FAMILIARITY: THE DOMESTIC SPHERE IN
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH VISUAL CULTUREPictorial representations of the family in eighteenth-century England were both numerous and varied, ranging from the small-scale provincial conversation piece to the grandiose society portrait. However, despite their divergences, these images reveal clear stylistic, compositional and narrative transitions in the mid decades of the 1700s.
Whilst direct comparison is always wrought with difficulties, the contrast between Bartholomew Dandridge's portrait of the d' Albiac family in Hungerford Park (figJ) and Johann Zoffany's John, 3rd Duke of Atholl and his Family of 1767 (fig.2) highlights the main features of this change. From stiffly posed, doll-like characters, the figures become more fluid in their actions. The sense of narrative is much greater, the family members united in a variety of activities to the exclusion of the viewer, belying the sense of the sitting in favour of an impression of privacy. Whilst in the former, the father stands apart from the family, merely gesticulating towards his wife and offspring for the benefit of the spectator, the Duke of Atholl is more involved, educating his eldest son in the art of fishing. The physical proximity of the matriarch to her children in this later image reveals a new pictorial intimacy and emphasis on the mother-child bond that is typical of this period. Those children are no longer represented as diminutive adults but are now distinguished from their elders in terms of physiognomy, dress and, most importantly, behaviour. Whilst the daughter on the end of the line in Dandridge's portrait solemnly returns the gesture of her father, the offspring of the Duke of Atholl fish, climb trees and pick flowers.