.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This remarkable work is one of a small number of group portraits painted by Lely in the later 1650s and early 1660s that constitute some of the most important works from probably the finest period of his oeuvre. It is dated by the late Sir Oliver Millar and by Diana Dethloff, to whom we are very grateful, to circa 1658-60, and is the grandest of a group of contemporaneous commissions by Lord Carnarvon, including two single portraits of himself and one of his two eldest children.
The later years of the Commonwealth in Britain saw a gradual relaxation of the mores and animosities that had been fuelled and fanned amongst the generation that had fought and experienced the Civil War. In part this was the result of the Protector's own dislike of radicalism, but also a sign of a broader weariness in the national psyche that was in its absence to become so manifest in the jubilatory atmosphere of the Restoration Court. Within those more benign times, a number of prominent Royalists were able to return to their estates, and there appeared a general tendency amongst the old royalist families to return by degree towards their former visibility in the counties.
This portrait is emblematic of that social climate. The Dormers were a part of one of the most prominent groups of Royalists: Lord Carnarvon's father, Robert, 1st Earl (c. 1610-1643) had been a noted officer and general in the Civil War, killed at the Battle of Newbury. He had also been the ward and then son-in-law of Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery and subsequently also Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain of King Charles I's household; his sister, Elizabeth (d. 1632), had been married to yet another prominent Royalist, Edward, Lord Herbert, subsequently Marquess of Worcester (d. 1667). Charles Dormer was Lord Carnarvon's only son, and had himself married a daughter of Arthur, 1st Baron Capel of Hadham (1604-1649), the parliamentarian and latterly Royalist officer who had been beheaded by order of Parliament.
Those family ties not only set the course of Carnarvon's political life, they also reinforced his position at the nexus of Lely's most prominent patrons. He had painted Lord Capel in 1647, and was commissioned by the latter's son, Arthur, 2nd Baron Capel (and subsequently 1st Earl of Essex; c. 1632-1683), to paint a double portrait of himself and his new wife, Lady Elizabeth Percy, daughter of the Earl of Northumberland, for or shortly after their marriage in 1653, as well as individual portraits of the couple in circa 1655. Lely had worked for Northumberland (in whose care the King's children were kept at Syon) in the 1640s, and had also in the mid-1650s been commissioned to portray his son, Joceline (Lady Capel's half-brother) in more than one version. For the Herberts, Lely's portrait of circa 1657 is known of Lady Carnarvon's brother and sister-in-law, the Hon. James and Mrs. Herbert, but he is also recorded in the late Earl's accounts in 1650 as receiving from his executors £85 'for several pictures made for the late Earle of Pembroke' (Hatfield House, Private and Estate MSS, Accounts, 168/2).
By the mid-1650s, Lely was the pre-eminent portraitist in Britain, so it is unsurprising that Lord Carnarvon would employ him. One might suggest, however, that his family ties were important in determining the nature and scale of the commission. There are, for example, similarities between the present work and the Capel double portraits in the three-quarter-length format, set against a part landscape, part curtain background, whilst that of Lord and Lady Capel shares with this the classicising motif of the antique bust. At the same time, this composition shows Lely's own development of his group portraiture, in comparison with those of The Perryer Family of 1655 (Buckinghamshire, Chequers Court, The Administrative Trustees of the Chequers Trust), The Hales Family of circa 1656 (London, Mansion House, Corporation of London) and The Cotton Family of circa 1657 (Manchester, City Art Galleries).
The Perryer Family is the earliest known such work by Lely and shows in the quality of its portraiture the aptitude that the artist had achieved (belying the accusation of sameness that has on occasion been levelled at his later work). That composition, however, lacks the grace and elegance of his best work of the period - for example the exceptional Henry Sidney, Earl of Romney (Penshurst, Viscount De L'Isle) - the figures seeming slightly self-consciously posed against the somewhat severe classical monuments without, one feels, any particular underlying unity of structure. This impressive but perhaps slightly unsatisfactory grandeur is discarded in the Hales portrait, in which Lely opted instead for a more bucolic setting that imbues the picture with a sense of intimacy with the subjects that is subtly strengthened by the slightly lower placement of the sitters within the composition, the viewer feeling somehow more on a level with the subjects.
That sense of intimacy is further developed in the Cotton Family of circa 1660 in Lely's movement of his focus marginally closer in towards his subjects. At the same time, the distraction of the figure raising the curtain in the Hales portrait is removed, encouraging the viewer's attention to rest more on the sitters than the scenery. The shape of the classical fountain behind the family, painted with a delightful fluency of handling, finishes a wedge-shaped composition that directs the viewer's gaze first towards Sir John Cotton's head and then his hand - which in turn leads one back into the main group - providing a more satisfactory focus than the pyramidical structure of the Hales portrait, in which the focal point is arguably the background sculpture rather than the sitters.
The Cotton portrait is undoubtedly a masterpiece of Lely's career, the combination of dynamic structure complementing the relaxed grandeur of the setting, the artful technique and the acuteness of the portraiture. The dating of the Carnarvon Family to circa 1658-60 places it shortly before that, and the relationship between the two in technique and composition would appear to accord with a fairly close proximity. It shares with the Cotton portrait the deft and fluid depiction of textiles and modelling of flesh tones, as well as the sensitivity of portraiture, that are so characteristic of this period of Lely's work. In addition, however, the artist has here pared down the sitters' surroundings and experiments with a compositional structure in the arrangement of the sitters that is perhaps the most interesting of the group.
Here, the background is all tranquillity, the exuberance of the classical motifs reduced to a plain column and a bust on a simply decorated plinth lending an air of subtle dignity to the landscape and curtain setting. The attention is thereby freed to dwell on the sitters, who are carefully arranged around two discreet diagonals that cross roughly around the central figure of the young Elizabeth Dormer, her hand charmingly supporting a goldfinch. The informality of that detail is echoed in the lightly maternal gesture with which Lady Carnarvon holds her young son's hand. Here, in his maturity, Lely evokes an atmosphere of relaxed grandeur that was to become not only perhaps the key ingredient of his oeuvre, but that also to a great extent through his work formed the overt pictorial testament of the Restoration court.
The later years of the Commonwealth in Britain saw a gradual relaxation of the mores and animosities that had been fuelled and fanned amongst the generation that had fought and experienced the Civil War. In part this was the result of the Protector's own dislike of radicalism, but also a sign of a broader weariness in the national psyche that was in its absence to become so manifest in the jubilatory atmosphere of the Restoration Court. Within those more benign times, a number of prominent Royalists were able to return to their estates, and there appeared a general tendency amongst the old royalist families to return by degree towards their former visibility in the counties.
This portrait is emblematic of that social climate. The Dormers were a part of one of the most prominent groups of Royalists: Lord Carnarvon's father, Robert, 1st Earl (c. 1610-1643) had been a noted officer and general in the Civil War, killed at the Battle of Newbury. He had also been the ward and then son-in-law of Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery and subsequently also Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain of King Charles I's household; his sister, Elizabeth (d. 1632), had been married to yet another prominent Royalist, Edward, Lord Herbert, subsequently Marquess of Worcester (d. 1667). Charles Dormer was Lord Carnarvon's only son, and had himself married a daughter of Arthur, 1st Baron Capel of Hadham (1604-1649), the parliamentarian and latterly Royalist officer who had been beheaded by order of Parliament.
Those family ties not only set the course of Carnarvon's political life, they also reinforced his position at the nexus of Lely's most prominent patrons. He had painted Lord Capel in 1647, and was commissioned by the latter's son, Arthur, 2nd Baron Capel (and subsequently 1st Earl of Essex; c. 1632-1683), to paint a double portrait of himself and his new wife, Lady Elizabeth Percy, daughter of the Earl of Northumberland, for or shortly after their marriage in 1653, as well as individual portraits of the couple in circa 1655. Lely had worked for Northumberland (in whose care the King's children were kept at Syon) in the 1640s, and had also in the mid-1650s been commissioned to portray his son, Joceline (Lady Capel's half-brother) in more than one version. For the Herberts, Lely's portrait of circa 1657 is known of Lady Carnarvon's brother and sister-in-law, the Hon. James and Mrs. Herbert, but he is also recorded in the late Earl's accounts in 1650 as receiving from his executors £85 'for several pictures made for the late Earle of Pembroke' (Hatfield House, Private and Estate MSS, Accounts, 168/2).
By the mid-1650s, Lely was the pre-eminent portraitist in Britain, so it is unsurprising that Lord Carnarvon would employ him. One might suggest, however, that his family ties were important in determining the nature and scale of the commission. There are, for example, similarities between the present work and the Capel double portraits in the three-quarter-length format, set against a part landscape, part curtain background, whilst that of Lord and Lady Capel shares with this the classicising motif of the antique bust. At the same time, this composition shows Lely's own development of his group portraiture, in comparison with those of The Perryer Family of 1655 (Buckinghamshire, Chequers Court, The Administrative Trustees of the Chequers Trust), The Hales Family of circa 1656 (London, Mansion House, Corporation of London) and The Cotton Family of circa 1657 (Manchester, City Art Galleries).
The Perryer Family is the earliest known such work by Lely and shows in the quality of its portraiture the aptitude that the artist had achieved (belying the accusation of sameness that has on occasion been levelled at his later work). That composition, however, lacks the grace and elegance of his best work of the period - for example the exceptional Henry Sidney, Earl of Romney (Penshurst, Viscount De L'Isle) - the figures seeming slightly self-consciously posed against the somewhat severe classical monuments without, one feels, any particular underlying unity of structure. This impressive but perhaps slightly unsatisfactory grandeur is discarded in the Hales portrait, in which Lely opted instead for a more bucolic setting that imbues the picture with a sense of intimacy with the subjects that is subtly strengthened by the slightly lower placement of the sitters within the composition, the viewer feeling somehow more on a level with the subjects.
That sense of intimacy is further developed in the Cotton Family of circa 1660 in Lely's movement of his focus marginally closer in towards his subjects. At the same time, the distraction of the figure raising the curtain in the Hales portrait is removed, encouraging the viewer's attention to rest more on the sitters than the scenery. The shape of the classical fountain behind the family, painted with a delightful fluency of handling, finishes a wedge-shaped composition that directs the viewer's gaze first towards Sir John Cotton's head and then his hand - which in turn leads one back into the main group - providing a more satisfactory focus than the pyramidical structure of the Hales portrait, in which the focal point is arguably the background sculpture rather than the sitters.
The Cotton portrait is undoubtedly a masterpiece of Lely's career, the combination of dynamic structure complementing the relaxed grandeur of the setting, the artful technique and the acuteness of the portraiture. The dating of the Carnarvon Family to circa 1658-60 places it shortly before that, and the relationship between the two in technique and composition would appear to accord with a fairly close proximity. It shares with the Cotton portrait the deft and fluid depiction of textiles and modelling of flesh tones, as well as the sensitivity of portraiture, that are so characteristic of this period of Lely's work. In addition, however, the artist has here pared down the sitters' surroundings and experiments with a compositional structure in the arrangement of the sitters that is perhaps the most interesting of the group.
Here, the background is all tranquillity, the exuberance of the classical motifs reduced to a plain column and a bust on a simply decorated plinth lending an air of subtle dignity to the landscape and curtain setting. The attention is thereby freed to dwell on the sitters, who are carefully arranged around two discreet diagonals that cross roughly around the central figure of the young Elizabeth Dormer, her hand charmingly supporting a goldfinch. The informality of that detail is echoed in the lightly maternal gesture with which Lady Carnarvon holds her young son's hand. Here, in his maturity, Lely evokes an atmosphere of relaxed grandeur that was to become not only perhaps the key ingredient of his oeuvre, but that also to a great extent through his work formed the overt pictorial testament of the Restoration court.