Lot Essay
John de Critz I was appointed ‘Serjeant Painter’ to James I and VI in May 1605, a prestigious and lucrative position at court, where he and his workshop set the standard for the King's likeness. The most well-known is a full-length type for which payments were recorded in 1606 and 1607, of which there are several autograph versions; for example at Loseley Park, Guildford, and in the Dulwich Picture Gallery, London (inv. no. DPG548). This became the standard iconographical type and face pattern employed during the first half of the monarch's reign, until it was superseded by Paul van Somer's full-length portrait of the King in Coronation robes, signed and dated 1618 (The Royal Collection, London, inv. no. 404446). The format further survives through many variations, including heads, bust-lengths and three-quarter-lengths, such as the example now at Montacute House, Somerset (National Trust, inv. no. NT 2900021).
This accomplished portrait retains elements of the full-length type in the facial expression and profile, but shows the King in a different, more imposing attitude. Rather than leaning somewhat informally on a tall table luxuriously draped in velvet and set against an elaborately patterned backdrop, here the King stands independently, arm akimbo, against a plain background, which throws into greater relief the intricacy of his costume, with its beautifully detailed stitched-on pearls, delicate lace collar and cuffs. His cloak boasts further ornamentation with pearls and jewels, rather than the fur cloak he wears in the full-length type. The texture of his satin doublet is rendered with the small horizontal brushstrokes so characteristic of the artist and his workshop. The resulting effect is arguably more striking than the luxurious full-length type and its variants.
James’s headwear in the present work also marks a departure from de Critz's other types. The King is generally shown wearing one of three distinctive jewels: the so-called ‘Feather’, the ‘Mirror of Great Britain’ or the ‘Three Brothers’ (see R. Strong, ‘Three Royal Jewels: The Three Brothers, the Mirror of Great Britain and the Feather', The Burlington Magazine, CVIII, no. 760, July 1966, pp. 350-3), and the jewel in the present work does not conform to any of the three.
We are grateful to Professor Karen Hearn for her assistance in the cataloguing of this lot.