Van Dyck Paintings in Stuart Royal Inventories, c. 1639-c.1688

Journal of the History of Collections vol. 30 no. 1 (2018) pp. 49–63 Van Dyck paintings in Stuart royal inventories, 1639–1688 Erin Griffey Van Dyck’s paintings have been thoroughly analyzed in terms of style, iconography and patronage, but there has been no systematic analysis of how these pictures were recorded in Stuart inventories. Pictures attributed to Van Dyck are listed in several royal inventories from c.1639 to c.1688 – from those compiled by Abraham van der Doort c.1639 to the Commonwealth sale of 1649–51, to Charles II of c.1666–67, Henrietta Maria of 1669 and James II of c.1685–88. This article considers the subject matter and placement of Van Dyck’s pictures in a range of palace and room contexts, and charts change and continuity of display across the inventories. The article shows the potential for the close comparison of these royal inventories for understanding display, taste and dynastic politics at the Stuart court. VAN DYCK’s paintings at the English court, produced irst during a six-month period in 1620–21 at the court of James I, and from 1632 as ‘principalle Paynter in Ordinarie to their Majesties’, Charles I and Henrietta Maria, were a spectacular success.1 Knighted soon after returning to England from the Continent in 1632, Van Dyck produced numerous portraits of the royal family and the nobility, his English portraits gifted and collected within élite circles in England and abroad. His compositions were widely copied (in large and in miniature) and disseminated as prints. Henrietta Maria noted ‘les bons et agréables services’ of ‘chevalier Antoine Vandyck’, this painter who was – is – ever-present in shaping the face of the Caroline court.2 Van Dyck’s astonishing talents as a painter of surface lustre and subtle movement, elegant weight and intimate characterization were a perfect match for Stuart courtly magniicence. Scholars have analyzed the style, iconography and patronage of the artist’s paintings, but there has been no systematic analysis of how these pictures were recorded in Stuart inventories. Several royal inventories survive from c.1639 to c.1688, from Abraham van der Doort’s ‘register’ of c.1639 to the Commonwealth sale inventories of 1649–51, to the Charles II inventory of c.1666–67, the post-mortem inventory of Henrietta Maria of 1669 and the James II inventory of c.1685–8.3 All of these have been transcribed and published, with the exception of the Charles II inventory, which Lucy Whitaker is currently undertaking for the Walpole Society. During the Stuart period, there was no methodical tracking of all works of art at every palace. Instead, inventories were occasioned by a number of different factors – personal, political and practical. Some of these record only works in particular palaces and rooms, especially the principal palaces and their state rooms and privy apartments, which were lavishly decorated.4 While inventories generally present a record of objects at a particular moment, Van der Doort tracks artworks over a longer period. Appointed by Charles I as surveyor of pictures in 1625, Van der Doort was charged ‘to keepe a Register’ of them.5 The four manuscripts of this ‘register’, a lengthy irst draft and three fair texts, are stamped with the date 1639, but Van der Doort had been compiling it for years and it includes numerous insertions, expansions, deletions and corrections.6 If the surviving records fail to offer a comprehensive picture of display at the Stuart court, they nonetheless offer valuable insight. This article provides an overview of Van Dyck paintings listed in these Stuart royal inventories.7 One entry by Van der Doort also records a ‘perspective’, for which Van Dyck was expected to paint a portrait of the king and ‘prince’ but ‘had no mijnd terentu’ [had no mind thereunto], an interesting reference to the painter’s perceived ability to decide what he had ‘mind’ to paint.8 The analysis of Van Dyck paintings in these inventories provides compelling evidence of the arrangement of pictures in certain palace and room contexts; the taste for his work, including preferences © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/jhc/fhx014 Advance Access publication 6 June 2017 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 ERIN GRIFFEY to be conspicuously displayed in the more public gallery spaces. Such galleries generally showcase works by prized artists, such as Van Dyck, as well as Italian Renaissance painters including Titian. This accords with William Salmon’s advice about the ‘Disposing of Pictures and Paintings’, which suggests that ‘the best works become Galleries; where any one may walk, exercise their senses, in viewing, examining, delighting and censuring’.9 Bedchambers also housed works considered important by virtue of their provenance and/or authorship or appropriate in terms of subject matter, whether an intimate religious image appropriate for private devotion or a portrait of a wife or favourite. References to the framing of Van Dyck’s pictures found in Van der Doort’s inventory also suggest hierarchies and preferences in terms of formal presentation. in terms of subject types; and the role of Van Dyck’s portraits of Charles I and Henrietta Maria in the dynastic claims of their sons. In addition, a number of paintings can be traced across inventories, including Charles I on Horseback (see Fig. 1), Henrietta Maria (see Fig. 2), Charles I and Henrietta Maria with Prince Charles and Princess Mary, known as the ‘greate peece’ (see Fig. 3), Charles I on Horseback with Monsieur de St Antoine (see Fig. 4) and Cupid and Psyche (see Fig. 5). With these and other Van Dyck pictures it is illuminating to chart the instances in which they were displayed in the same location, or as they moved into different palaces and rooms. In addition, some conclusions can be drawn concerning the hierarchy of display at the Stuart court, with images of major dynastic importance, especially family portraits, and claims to martial power tending Fig. 1. Anthony van Dyck, Charles I on Horseback, c.1635–6. Oil on canvas, 96 x 86.3 cm. Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2017. 50 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 VA N D Y C K P A I N T I N G S I N S T U A R T R O YA L I N V E N T O R I E S , 1 6 3 9 – 1 6 8 8 reign of Philip IV that decoration could be a process of ‘random selection’, but it could also be driven by inding unity through subject matter, style, national school or even focus around a particular artist, such as Titian, or through a larger thematic unity.10 These approaches to decoration can be discerned to some extent at the Stuart court, although careful consideration of this is beyond the scope of the present article. In many cases, rooms at the Stuart court housed a surprising variety of pictures, marked by difference in genre, national school and scale. There is no room, for example, dedicated solely to pictures by Van Dyck in any of the royal inventories, although a number of his portraits were hung in the Cross Gallery at Somerset House during the reign of Charles I. It is also signiicant that Van Dyck’s works are more commonly found at Whitehall Palace than other palaces under Charles I and Charles II, though his pictures are listed at other palaces, including Hampton Court, in the Commonwealth sale inventories and Windsor in the inventory from the early years of James II. Nevertheless, the sheer number of Van Dyck paintings alongside other masters, both contemporary (such as Mytens and Rubens) and earlier masters he so deeply admired (including Titian), as well as the prominent location of many of his pictures, demonstrates his importance at the Stuart court.11 Van Dyck is identiied as the painter in eighty-eight entries across the Stuart royal inventories c.1639 – c.1688, referring to about forty-seven pictures or types thereof.12 In some cases the description is speciic enough to make an identiication viable and often this is consistent enough across different inventories to track pictures with some conviction. Keepers and curators of the Royal Collection, most notably Oliver Millar, have identiied many Van Dyck pictures that survive there, and have traced their provenances. In other cases this has been complicated by vague descriptions, such as generic references to a ‘head’ or a picture of a ‘ladi’ [lady] or a common religious subject. Terse references to portraits even of named subjects can be frustrating when several portraits could it the description. Sometimes the consistency of placement in the same room or other connection makes an attempt at identiication tempting, if unconirmed. In other cases, the descriptions are tantalizing but elusive in connecting them to known surviving works by Van Dyck, such as ‘A sea Peice with a greate Rocke & some isher men upon the Shoare’, listed amongst Fig. 2. Anthony van Dyck, Henrietta Maria, before August 1632. Oil on canvas, 109 x 86.2 cm. Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2017. One must be cautious, however, in asserting a strict hierarchy of display at the Stuart court, since pictures with illustrious provenances and by famous painters might be placed in storage. And even if an inventory records a picture in storage, it is not always clear whether such pictures remained in storage long-term or spent a short period there during refurbishment. Some pictures seem to disappear from the records, whether reattributed, gifted or otherwise removed from the collection. For example, ive paintings by Van Dyck were recorded in storage at Whitehall in the Charles II inventory of c.1666–7, but at the end of his reign, when the James II inventory seems to have been created, two were now on display, one at Whitehall and one at Windsor, another remained in storage and the other two were no longer traceable. Furthermore, despite overarching themes and subjects in certain spaces, such as the Cross Gallery at Somerset House and the Gallery at St James’s, there is rarely a systematic iconographic programme in a particular gallery or room. Steven Orso has shown in his analysis of pictorial display at the Alcázar during the 51 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 ERIN GRIFFEY Fig. 3. Anthony van Dyck, Charles I and Henrietta Maria with Prince Charles and Princess Mary, 1631–32. Oil on canvas, 303.8 x 256.5 cm. Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2017. the immediate royal family hung at Whitehall: one of the king on a ‘Dunn horse’ (Chair Room) (Fig. 1), the portrait of Henrietta Maria in a ‘white habbitt’ (in the king’s bedchamber) (Fig. 2), the family portrait of the king, queen, Prince Charles and Princess Mary (Long Gallery) (Fig. 3) and the depiction of the ive eldest children (Breakfast Chamber).15 The larger version of this equestrian portrait of the king apparently hung in the Princes Gallery at Hampton Court, and was sold to Sir Balthazar Gerbier at the Commonwealth sale.16 A further equestrian portrait of the king on a white horse hung at the end of the Gallery at St James’s (Fig. 4).17 Because Van der Doort’s register is not comprehensive, this may explain the absence of other references to works by Van Dyck. Other pictures the contents of storage at Whitehall in the c.1666–67 inventory, and the picture of a ‘large reddish spaniel’ relegated to storage in 1685.13 Van Dyck’s name is spelled in several variations, usually with his title (Sir) attached, including as Sr Antho Vandik, Sr Antho Vandike, Sor Antoni Vandijk, Sir Anthony van Dyke and Vandyck. Although two Van Dyck pictures are listed in the 1635 schedule of the possessions of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham at York House, the irst pictures attributed to the painter in Stuart royal inventories appear in Van der Doort’s register of c.1639, comprising twenty-two pictures.14 Nineteen, thus the majority of these pictures, were portraits, and, of these, thirteen were displayed at the king’s principal palace, Whitehall. Four portraits of 52 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 VA N D Y C K P A I N T I N G S I N S T U A R T R O YA L I N V E N T O R I E S , 1 6 3 9 – 1 6 8 8 Lorraine portrait, painted in Brussels. Van der Doort notes, for example, that the Lanier portrait was made ‘Beyond ye Seas’, and similarly elaborates that the van den Bergh portrait was painted ‘Beyond [the Seas] / befor hi kam hir in ingellent’ [before he came here in England].21 The portrait of de Lorraine was, according to Van der Doort’s entry, a gift to the king from Endymion Porter.22 One further picture with a pre-England provenance was the ‘old man’s head’ in the Long Gallery, which was apparently bought by Charles when he ‘Was prinz onlij’ [was prince only].23 The portrait of Marie de Medici may have been a freshly commissioned autograph copy of the portrait now in Bordeaux.24 Thus we cannot conclude that the majority of Van Dyck’s portraits recorded in Van der Doort’s register were painted in England or, for that matter, that they depict English subjects. The locations of the Van Dyck pictures listed in Van der Doort’s register is also relevant: a portrait of a ‘ladi’ hung in the queen’s rooms at her jointure palace of Greenwich and his portrait of Isabella Clara Eugenia in a ‘romen habit’ hung at the Queen’s House in Greenwich.25 In addition, his image of the Virgin and Child with Angels hung in Henrietta Maria’s bedchamber at Whitehall.26 The Long Gallery at Whitehall was home to the massive family portrait, the so called ‘greate peece’ (Fig. 3), as well as two additional Van Dyck pictures. Other Van Dyck portraits congregated in the Bear Gallery.27 Two portraits by Van Dyck also hung in the Privy Gallery (Marie de Medici and the double portrait of the Palatine princes). Van Dyck pictures hung, too, in both the king’s bedchamber (the portrait of Henrietta Maria in white, Fig. 2) and in the queen’s bedchamber (Virgin and Child with Angels).28 Van der Doort’s register shows that the Long Gallery was a showpiece of Renaissance and seventeenth-century paintings (113) and igural sculptures (thirty-four), mostly heads.29 Van Dyck had high visibility here, with his enormous family portrait (Fig. 3) and two other works, including Cupid and Psyche (Fig. 5). The majority (seventy) of the pictures were by Italian painters including Giulio Romano, Domenico Fetti, Veronese, Tintoretto and Raphael, and only sixteen were by Netherlandish painters.30 There seems to have been no particular theme to the pictures in the Long Gallery, with a mix of portraits (sixtytwo), religious pictures (thirty-nine), mythological works (sixteen), allegories (ive), self-portraits (four), Fig. 4. Anthony van Dyck, Charles I on Horseback with Monsieur de St Antoine, 1633. Oil on canvas, 370 x 270 cm. Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2017. appear in the Commonwealth sale inventories, as we shall see below.18 In addition to Van Dyck’s portraits of the royal family, Van der Doort lists a self-portrait of the painter showing him ‘with his left hand at his breast’.19 This hung in the same room, ‘the litle roome at the hithr end of the Longe gallorie’, along with two other Netherlandish artists’ self-portraits by Rubens and Mytens (the latter’s image was situated above the door, perhaps making him less visible than the others).20 Further portraits attributed by Van der Doort to Van Dyck commemorated relatives at foreign courts (Marie de Medici, Isabella Clara Eugenia, Henriette de Lorraine, Charles Louis and Prince Rupert) and musicians (Nicholas Lanier and Hendrick Liberti) as well as the pro-Spanish military captain, Count Hendrick van den Bergh. Notably, with the exception of the double portrait of the Prince Palatine, Charles Louis, and his brother, Prince Rupert, these portraits were painted in Antwerp, based on an Antwerp period portrait, or, in the case of the Henriette de 53 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 ERIN GRIFFEY Fig. 5. Anthony van Dyck, Cupid and Psyche, 1639–40. Oil on canvas, 200.2 x 192.6 cm. Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2017. landscapes (three), histories (two) and two images of ‘laughing’ igures.31 While Bronzino, Pordenone, Giulio and Rembrandt were all proudly displayed in their self-portraits in the Long Gallery, it is notable that Van Dyck’s self-portrait was located separately in the adjacent ‘litle’ room at the end of the gallery with the self-portraits by two of his Netherlandish contemporaries, Rubens and Mytens. The Bear Gallery had a preponderance of portraits, representing thirty out of the thirty-seven works listed there; of the portraits, ive were by Van Dyck, eleven by Daniel Mytens, two by Michiel van Mierevelt and two by Gerrit van Honthorst and one each by Paul van Somer and Antonis Mor.32 Mytens may have had more works in the Bear Gallery than Van Dyck, but only two other works by him were listed by Van der Doort: his aforementioned self-portrait and his portrait of Prince Henry in the king’s Whitehall bedchamber.33 The Gallery at St James’s was, like the Long Gallery, also overwhelmingly dominated by Italian artists, which adds signiicance to Van Dyck’s presence there with three works (including the massive equestrian portrait with Monsieur de St Antoine, Fig. 4).34 The most widely represented painters here were Giulio Romano (eight pictures), Titian (eight pictures) and Tintoretto (six pictures). Although there were several religious paintings in this gallery, along with a range of other genres, one of the most compelling themes of the St James’s Gallery was martial power. With several images of Roman emperors on horseback by Giulio and half-length portraits of the same by Titian in the same room, Van Dyck’s depiction of Charles I vied for attention with the Italian painters he admired – and indeed Charles I was able to dominate the visual ield over Roman emperors through the sheer size and placement of his equestrian portrait at the far end of the gallery. A connection might be made here with the Salón Nuevo at the Alcázar in Madrid, completed in 1636, where Rubens’s equestrian portrait of Philip IV 54 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 VA N D Y C K P A I N T I N G S I N S T U A R T R O YA L I N V E N T O R I E S , 1 6 3 9 – 1 6 8 8 princes are depicted in armour in the portrait.43 Other portraits were still in their straining frames, such as those of van den Bergh and Liberti, which both hung in the Bear Gallery, as was the Cupid and Psyche (Fig. 5), in the Long Gallery.44 The head of an old man in the Long Gallery had no frame at all.45 Clearly it was not deemed essential to frame a picture to hang it, even if it was displayed in a gallery amongst other framed works. Van Dyck’s ‘Memoire’ or invoice to the king from late 1638 further demonstrates that the artist sometimes supplied pictures with frames, for two portraits of the king are listed as framed.46 The invoice also includes a separate change for frames for the ‘veu Conte’, presumably for the two ‘demis’ portraits of Henrietta Maria intended for him that are listed in the same bill.47 Van der Doort’s detailed entries contrast sharply with the descriptions in the Commonwealth sale inventories. The 1649 Act for the sale speciied that these were the ‘goods and personal estate of the late King, Queen and Prince’.48 These inventories include more pictures attributed to Van Dyck (30) than found in Van der Doort (22). Two further works (see below) not attributed to Van Dyck are now widely accepted in the scholarship to be by the painter. The sparse information provided can make it complicated to link some pictures from the Commonwealth sale to Van der Doort, but in many cases one can reasonably surmise that the same picture is being described. In the case of portraits, the subject is usually given, and if it is a full-length, i.e., ‘at length’. There are occasional elaborations, such as the note that the portrait of the Archduchess Isabella was ‘done by ye life’, an interesting assertion given that the portrait seems to have been a repetition of Rubens’s 1625 portrait.49 The greater number of pictures attributed to Van Dyck in the Commonwealth sale inventories can be explained by the inclusion of pictures in palaces and rooms not recorded by Van der Doort and pictures painted subsequently by the artist. There are, for example, now two entries for Van Dyck portraits of Marie de Medici (one in Somerset House and one at St James’s), possibly because she had been in residence at the English court in 1639–41 at St James’s.50 References to quality are rarely made in the Commonwealth sale entries, and the only such comment for a Van Dyck attributed work is bestowed on the ‘greate peece’ (Fig. 3), described as ‘very Curioslÿ done’.51 hung at one end of the gallery, surrounded by other images that proclaimed the Spanish crown’s imperial, Catholic ambitions.35 If Rubens’s Philip IV was the ‘triumphant defender’ of Catholicism in the Salón Nuevo,36 Van Dyck’s Charles I, who parades under a Roman triumphal arch, answers the call for a Protestant defender of the faith (in the blue sash of the Order of the Garter rather than the red sash of the Catholic Imperial Party) with his own militaristic ambitions.37 For the cognoscenti, Van Dyck was, like Rubens, invoking Titian’s prototype of Charles V on horseback with all its powerful political (and artistic) associations, which hung at the opposite end of Philip IV’s salon. There are a few conclusions to be made based on the presence of Van Dyck’s works in Van der Doort’s register. Firstly, several of Van Dyck’s pictures protrayed sitters with close familial connections to Henrietta Maria (Marie de Medici was her mother, Isabella was her cousin and Henriette de Lorraine was her sister-in-law) and indeed three Van Dyck pictures were hung in her rooms. Giovanni Bellori tells us that Van Dyck ‘Per le Regna fece’ [made for the queen] the Virgin and Child with Angels that hung in her bedchamber.38 Of further interest is the placement in the Privy Gallery of the Catholic Marie de Medici in the same room as the Protestant Palatine princes. This may have been a calculated decision to cater to a range of confessional identities who would enter this space. Moreover, Van Dyck’s works were prominently located, and it is revealing that several hung alongside Italian masters. At the Queen’s House at Greenwich, for example, his portrait of the Archduchess Isabella was the only picture by a Netherlandish artist. The others were all by Italians.39 Henrietta Maria’s bedchamber at Whitehall, where she gave birth to the Princess Catherine in 1639, had Van Dyck’s Virgin and Child with Angels amongst other images of the Holy Family and Virgin and Child by Orazio Gentileschi, Luca Cambiaso and Raphael.40 Van der Doort also records details about the frames used for Van Dyck’s pictures. Most were both carved and gilded, though the large family portrait was only ‘Some part guilded’.41 The depiction of the Five Eldest Children was set in a ‘blue and carved’ gilded frame and the double portrait of the Palatinate princes was particularly lavish, being ‘adorned with Marshiall weapons carved whited and guilded frame’.42 The latter frame was particularly itting given that the 55 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 ERIN GRIFFEY today accepted as the same picture listed as a Van Dyck by Van der Doort.58 The equestrian portrait of the king on a white horse (Fig. 4) is also not directly attributed to the artist but is now acknowledged to be the one valued at £150 and sold to Hugh Pope, listed at Somerset House amongst works from St James’s, where it had hung during the time of Van der Doort.59 In the Commonwealth sale inventories, just two pictures by Van Dyck were on display at outlying palaces in the queen’s jointure: the portrait of the Archduchess Isabella was still at Greenwich but moved from the withdrawing chamber to the Queen’s Gallery, and the Cupid and Psyche (Fig. 5), transferred from its former location in the Long Gallery at Whitehall to Wimbledon.60 A portrait of the ‘Prince Cardinal’ by Van Dyck is listed amongst the pictures at Hampton Court, as is a ‘Prince Thomas’, descriptions that are not consistent with any of the portraits described by Van der Doort.61 Other pictures had been moved in the ten years since Van der Doort inventoried them: the portrait of Liberti had been relocated to St James’s, as had Van Dyck’s self-portrait. The Virgin and Child with Angels was transferred from the queen’s Whitehall bedchamber to Somerset House.62 Others seem to be missing or are unidentiiable in the Commonwealth lists: the portrait of van den Bergh; the ‘old man’s head’; and the double portrait of Charles Louis and Rupert. For the Commonwealth sales, the biggest congregation of Van Dyck pictures was at Somerset House (twelve), and most of them seem to have been intended to hang there: the double portrait of Charles I and Henrietta Maria with a ‘lawrell leafe’ in the Great Closet, the Three Eldest Children in the Drawing Room; the Virgin and Child with Angels and eight fulllength portraits in the Cross Gallery.63 The ravishing Rinaldo and Armida (1629), now in Baltimore, hung in the Great Gallery, and may have been on display at Somerset House for some time, since it was not listed amongst the contents of Whitehall in Van der Doort.64 This was another Antwerp-period painting that the king had acquired, in this case through Endymion Porter. The Cross Gallery featured twenty-three individual full-length portraits, with eight attributed to Van Dyck, depicting the king, queen, Prince of Wales (Fig. 6), and ive other subjects with dynastic importance to king and queen: James I, Prince Henry, Marie de Medici, Gaston, Duc d’Orléans (her brother) and Since many pictures were moved to Somerset House for the sale of the royal goods, especially from Whitehall and St James’s, it is not always certain which pictures were normally displayed at Somerset House.52 In any case, even in times of peace, pictures were moved around, such as on the occasion of Henrietta Maria giving birth to Princess Catherine in 1639.53 Another complicating factor is that the palaces had not been fully occupied by the court in several years. There are clues in the inventories and from other accounts that the king’s imprisonment for a few months in 1647 at Hampton Court occasioned a copy of the ‘greate’ family portrait in the Long Gallery (Fig. 3) as well as the transfer of a few special family portraits from Whitehall to Hampton Court.54 Van Dyck’s portrait of the Five Eldest Children is likely the portrait of ‘the Kings Childrn in one peece by Vandyke’ recorded at Hampton Court for the Commonwealth sale, as was a portrait of Henrietta Maria (likely the portrait of her in white that formerly hung in the king’s Whitehall bedchamber) (Fig. 2).55 The three portraits are listed in succession in the Commonwealth sale inventories, as if they were hung side by side. The equestrian portrait by Van Dyck, presumably the one previously in the Chair Room at Whitehall (Fig. 1), was listed just a few items before these royal family portraits, with three extremely expensive Titian religious paintings between them (these Titian pictures valued in total at a staggering £1,400).56 It is compelling to consider the proximity of the Van Dyck pictures to those by Titian, and ask if the king perhaps meditated on his mortality and legacy in a visual display that juxtaposed Titian pictures of the Supper at Emmaus, the Virgin Mary, and the Burial of Christ alongside Van Dyck’s portraits of the king, his consort and his children. Despite the temporal distance between the court’s occupation of the palaces and the drawing up of the inventories for the sale, tentative conclusions can be made. Some pictures were apparently intended for particular rooms, most notably the Cross Gallery at Somerset House. Others are listed speciically as coming from a particular palace. Based on the details given, and leaving out pictures that seem to have been moved to Somerset House for the sale, it seems that the largest proportion of Van Dyck pictures hung at Somerset House (twelve), followed by St James’s (seven), Whitehall (ive) and Hampton Court (ive).57 The double portrait of George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, and Lord Francis, is unattributed but 56 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 VA N D Y C K P A I N T I N G S I N S T U A R T R O YA L I N V E N T O R I E S , 1 6 3 9 – 1 6 8 8 Fig. 6. Anthony van Dyck, Charles II as Prince of Wales, before May 1638. Oil on canvas, 154 x 132.1 cm. Royal Collection Trust / © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2017. Marguerite de Lorraine (her sister-in-law).65 The Cross Gallery had a tradition of displaying portraits, and at the time of Anne of Denmark was hung solely with portraits (ifteen of them).66 Van Dyck likely brought the portrait of Gaston with him to England in 1632, for the king authorized a payment for a full-length portrait of ‘Monsieur the french Kings brother’ on 8 August 1632.67 The aforementioned 1638 bill from the artist lists several portraits that seem to be connected to the Cross Gallery, including ‘Le Prince Carlos en armes pour Somerset’ at £40, referring to this commission.68 The same bill refers to portraits of Henrietta Maria herself as well as Prince Henry, Marie de Medici, both billed at £50. These amounts are consistent with prices for full-length portraits (the smaller portrait of Prince Charles seems to take that into account). Remarkably, the king annotated the bill with the inal prices for works for which he was considered responsible, while the queen herself was intended to decide how much the artist was paid for the other works. Although her part of the bill was probably ultimately settled by the king, this suggests that these paintings had her directorial input.69 Moreover, the connection between Van Dyck and Henrietta Maria is corroborated by the prevalence of his works in the palaces of her jointure at the time of the Commonwealth sales. Henrietta Maria’s display of Van Dyck’s portraits of herself and her children extended to her château at Colombes outside of Paris, where she died in 1669.70 There, the Three Eldest Children, formerly in the Drawing Room at Somerset House, was displayed in 57 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 ERIN GRIFFEY Other groups of pictures were moved to new locations, such as the trio of self-portraits of Van Dyck, Rubens and Mytens formerly encountered in the ‘litle’ room at the end of the Long Gallery at Whitehall. These were now positioned in Whitehall in the ‘Passage between the Green Room and the Closet’, along with at least thirteen other artists’ self-portraits, including Titian, Giorgione, Raphael and Rembrandt.76 This organization of artists’ self-portraits, although apparent on a small scale during the time of Charles I (distributed with some in the ‘litle’ room and others in the Long Gallery itself), was now consolidated into one location during the time of Charles II. Considering Cardinal Leopold de Medici’s contemporaneous collection of artists’ self-portraits, and Cosimo de Medici’s English visit of 1669 and later establishment of the famous gallery of self-portraits at the Ufizi, it is worth posing the question whether there might be a connection with Charles II’s ‘Passage’, with its sixteen artists’ self-portraits. These were shown amongst twenty-four other pictures, a mix of artist portraits, such as a Rubens portrait of ‘Vandyke in a dutch habit’, portraits of learned men (Erasmus as well as other portraits featuring books and papers), and other portraits, landscapes, genre scenes and a single religious work depicting the Good Samaritan. Charles II’s inventory records many pictures that had been returned to the crown at the Restoration and shows, in a few cases, consistency of display since the time of Van der Doort and the Commonwealth sale inventories. The dynastic importance of some portraits, in particular their placement in the same locations as his father, showcases the importance of both visual and hereditary lineage. The James II inventory of pictures, as Andrew Barclay has shown, seems to record the pictures at Whitehall as they were placed at the end of Charles II’s reign in early 1685, and at Windsor in 1688. Unlike the limited coverage of the c.1666–7 inventory, which solely records pictures at Whitehall and Hampton Court, the later inventory also includes St James’s and Windsor. More analysis is needed of this inventory, but it is noteworthy that Whitehall (869 entries, 104 of them in storage) was far more heavily populated with works of art than other palaces, such as Hampton Court (177), Windsor (170, none in storage) and St. James’s (just forty-nine, twenty-three of which were in storage and another nine in the wardrobe). This inventory records twentytwo paintings attributed to Van Dyck, comprising her Presence Chamber, where it could be widely viewed. The portrait of Charles II as Prince of Wales (Fig. 6), which had previously hung in the Cross Gallery at Somerset House, was now hung in the Vestibule, and a Van Dyck portrait of the queen ‘when she was young’ hung more privately in her Dressing Room. Although the last description is vague, the two former portraits had both hung at Somerset House, suggesting that she felt some claim to those portraits. Charles II seems likely to have approved her taking the pictures to France, and two portraits of the royal children were both returned to him at her death, for they can be linked with pictures listed in the 1685–8 inventory.71 Charles II’s pictures at Whitehall and Hampton Court seem to have been inventoried c.1666–7. This inventory includes ten entries for pictures by Van Dyck, eight of them familiar from his father’s reign and two previously unseen in the royal inventories, the aforementioned intriguing ‘sea Peice’ and a depiction of Christ with St John. In addition, the double portrait of the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Francis, which was not attributed to Van Dyck in the Commonwealth sale inventories, appears here, again unattributed but to be conidently identiied as such. This double portrait was in storage at Whitehall, along with four other Van Dyck pictures: Charles I in coronation robes, Margaret Lemon, Christ and St John and the ‘sea Peice’.72 Charles II did, however, ensure that his father was on show in the equestrian portrait with Monsieur de St Antoine, which was no longer at St James’s but now hung at Hampton Court in ‘Paradise’ (Fig. 4).73 The storage of pictures under Charles II deserves more attention than can be given here (180 are listed as in storage at Whitehall and another nine at Hampton Court in the c.1666–7 inventory), but it is certainly notable that ive Van Dyck pictures were not on view when the inventory was taken. However, other Van Dyck pictures with dynastic signiicance enjoyed pride of place, in particular the ‘greate peece’ (Fig. 3) in the Long Gallery at Whitehall, where it had formerly hung during Charles I’s reign.74 Similarly, the portrait of Henrietta Maria in white (Fig. 2) was positioned in the King’s Bedchamber at Whitehall, as it had during his father’s day. The depiction of the Five Eldest Children, which had previously hung above the table in Charles I’s Breakfast Chamber, was now displayed in the Third Privy Lodging Room (also known as the Square Table Room) at Whitehall.75 58 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 VA N D Y C K P A I N T I N G S I N S T U A R T R O YA L I N V E N T O R I E S , 1 6 3 9 – 1 6 8 8 Orange and William, Prince of Orange.85 Van Dyck’s self-portrait continued to hang in the same passage between the closet and the Green Room, amongst the same other artists’ self-portraits that hung there twenty years previously.86 Some changes had been made in this ‘passage’, which now had thirty-two rather than thirty-eight pictures, including the movement of three genre scenes to the nearby stool room. This passage had, moreover, now a stronger sense of a gallery of artists’ self-portraits (fourteen), interspersed with other portraits of artists (four) and igures associated with reading.87 The portrait of Charles II as Prince of Wales (Fig. 6), formerly in the Cross Gallery and inventoried at Colombes, was now recorded in the king’s Great Bedchamber at Windsor.88 Another Van Dyck picture hung in the same room, a portrait of the ‘late Prince and Princess of Orange’, presumably a version of the double portrait now in the Rijksmuseum.89 The new lodgings at Whitehall had resulted in moving a number of pictures, including Van Dyck’s Cupid and Psyche (Fig. 5), formerly in the bedchamber and now placed in the Great Antechamber in the ‘New Lodgings’.90 Another return from Colombes, Van Dyck’s portrait of the Three Eldest Children, was also situated in the Great Antechamber. The portrait of the Five Eldest Children stayed in Whitehall but was moved from its mid-1660s location in the Third Privy Lodging Room to the Yellow Bedchamber.91 Others previously in storage found a new life on display, such as Van Dyck’s portrait of Margaret Lemon, now placed in the king’s private closet at Whitehall.92 Van Dyck was well represented at Windsor in 1688, with pictures in several different rooms in the privy apartments: the Privy Chamber (Duchess of Richmond), Withdrawing Chamber (Kenelm Digby; double portrait of the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Francis), the Great Bedchamber (double portrait of Prince William and Princess Mary; Charles II as Prince of Wales in armour, Fig. 6) and the closet (equestrian portrait of Charles I on a dun horse is listed here, though the entry is accompanied by the note, ‘at Hampton Court’).93 The closet had two portraits ‘after Vandyck’, one of Mrs Endymion Porter and the other of Anne, Countess of Newport.94 The portrait of Venetia Digby hung in the Queen’s Drawing Room.95 There is poignancy to the display in the Great Bedchamber.96 Alongside the Van Dyck portraits of Charles II as Prince of Wales and his sister, most of the other pictures from the c.1666–7 inventory, a few works not recorded in earlier inventories and at least two Van Dyck portraits returned from Henrietta Maria’s château at Colombes after her death in 1669. In 1685–8, the Van Dyck pictures were spread amongst three royal palaces, chiely at Whitehall (fourteen) but also at Windsor (seven) as well as at Hampton Court (one is clearly listed as hanging there, the equestrian portrait of Charles I on the white horse, in the Queen’s Gallery). Two different versions of the equestrian portrait of Charles I on a dun horse are recorded in the 1685–8 inventory, including one in storage at Whitehall.77 The other is listed amongst the pictures at Windsor, with the added note ‘at Hampton Court’, suggesting that this picture had been moved there.78 This equestrian portrait was recorded along with other pictures ‘that were not the late king’s’ (Charles II’s), and thus may be related to the one recorded in the Duke of York’s collection at Whitehall in 1674.79 A couple of pictures attributed to Van Dyck in the earlier Charles II inventory are not readily traceable here, namely the portrait of Charles I in coronation robes and the ‘sea Peice’. A number of Van Dyck pictures are new to the 1685–8 inventory, either added to the collection or re-attributed since the c.1666–7 inventory, including the ‘reddish spaniel’, a life-sized Madonna as well as a portrait of Henrietta Maria ‘side-face’ and portraits of Sir Kenelm Digby and his ‘lady’, Venetia.80 A further two portraits of Henrietta Maria are listed, one of which remained in the same location since the earlier inventory.81 Not all of the known works are accepted as autograph today, with the portraits of Kenelm and Venetia Digby regarded as studio copies. Eight Van Dyck pictures are listed in storage, including iconic works from his father’s reign, the ‘greate peece’ and the portrait of his father on a dun horse.82 A further portrait of his mother, the one in proile mentioned above, was also in storage.83 The Christ and St John remained in storage, as it had been over twenty years earlier.84 The deployment of Van Dyck pictures suggests both continuity and change in the nearly twenty years since the last inventory. The half-length portrait of Henrietta Maria stayed in the king’s bedchamber at Whitehall, now the ‘old’ bedchamber, with three of the same family portraits listed in c.1666–7, all by Adriaen Hanneman, of Henriette-Anne, Mary, Princess of 59 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 ERIN GRIFFEY selfe in the prsence of Sr James Palmer’, a copy could be portable and privately admired. This miniature was a point of pride, since the king presented it to Van der Doort in the presence of a courtier who was himself an amateur miniature painter. Van Dyck’s pictures produced at the English court continue to serve as our visual touchstone of the halcyon days of the Stuart court of the 1630s. Their currency in large-scale exhibitions and at home in the Royal Collection, attests to their continuing power in claims to artistic and royal magniicence. The importance of Van Dyck in visualizing Stuart dynastic power is also demonstrated through their display at royal palaces during the reigns of his patrons, Charles I and Henrietta Maria, as well as their son, Charles II. Van Dyck’s pictures were prominently staged, both in their locations with their attendant audiences as well as their artistic company (Italian masters). Copies after Van Dyck’s pictures were also kept at the royal palaces, particularly family portraits in smaller versions. The wide dissemination and display of his work beyond royal palaces merits further attention alongside the conclusions here. Mary, in the double portrait with William, which are both nostalgic and strangely prescient considering the events of 1688, there was Godfrey Kneller’s fulllength portrait of Louise de Keroualle, arguably the king’s greatest love. Another picture with some personal signiicance hung in this Windsor bedchamber, an Antonio Verrio picture of Christ ‘curing the lame and blind’, almost certainly a reference to the king’s ritualistic touching of patients to cure the King’s Evil.97 Van Dyck’s presence in Stuart court display was not of course limited to pictures he himself made and/or those directly attributed to him. As the above references to portraits ‘after’ Van Dyck in the 1685–8 inventory demonstrate, copies are also recorded in Stuart royal inventories, and these are generally described as works ‘after’ an artist. These copies were in the form of painted portraits on canvas as well as miniatures. In 1685–8, in addition to the copies of Van Dyck’s portraits of Mrs Endymion Porter and the Countess of Newport, there were pictures of the Countess of Dorset and Charles II as well as miniature copies of portraits of Henrietta Maria executed by Richard Gibson and John Hoskins.98 The inventory records copies by ifteen named painters, with copies after Van Dyck (six) only eclipsed by pictures after Titian (twelve). Copies after Van Dyck appear in the other inventories, too, with three in the c.1666–7 inventory, including a miniature copy of Henrietta Maria by Hoskins, in the king’s closet at Whitehall, as well as two others, Remigius van Leemput’s copy of the ‘greate peece’, in the Queen’s Gallery at Whitehall, and Jan Belcamp’s small ‘Prospective’ of Henrietta Maria, in Paradise at Hampton Court.99 The Leemput picture is the only copy after Van Dyck listed in the Commonwealth sale inventories, which documents it at Hampton Court.100 The Belcamp work ‘after’ Van Dyck appears in Van der Doort, placed in the king’s Chair Room in the Privy Gallery at Whitehall.101 Another picture of Henrietta Maria, a miniature by Hoskins which was ‘the last that Hoskins did after Sir Anthony Vandike’ is also mentioned in Van der Doort, and recorded as delivered to the king in 1639.102 Given that several of Van Dyck’s portraits of Henrietta Maria were acquired by courtiers and foreign élites and thus displayed outside the royal palaces, copies enabled broad circulation of portrait types.103 And in the case of a miniature, like this one, which Van der Doort received ‘by your Mats owne Address for correspondence Erin Griffey, The University of Auckland, Art History, 14a Symonds Street, Auckland, New Zealand. [email protected] Acknowledgements This paper was inspired by the Van Dyck: Anatomy of Portraiture exhibition at the Frick Collection in 2016, and discussions with colleagues at the Study Day. I am grateful to the Surveyor of The Queen’s Pictures, Desmond Shawe-Taylor, and to Assistant Surveyor, Lucy Whitaker, for access to the manuscript of Charles II’s inventory in the Surveyor’s Ofice. I would also like to thank Andrew Barclay, Bendor Grosvenor, Richard Stephens, Simon Turner and Jeremy Wood for their continuing encouragement of my work on Stuart inventories. Notes and references 1 W. Hookham Carpenter, Pictorial Notices, consisting of a memoir of Anthony van Dyck, with a descriptive catalogue of the etchings executed by him, and a variety of interesting particulars relating to other artists patronised by Charles I (London, 1844), p. 29. 2 Letter of 26 August 1633; H. Hymans, ‘Les dernières années de Van Dyck’, Gazette de Beaux-Arts 36 (1887), p. 434. 3 O. Millar (ed.), ‘Abraham Van Der Doort’s Catalogue of the Collections of Charles I’, The Walpole Society 37 (1958–60), pp. 60 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 VA N D Y C K P A I N T I N G S I N S T U A R T R O YA L I N V E N T O R I E S , 1 6 3 9 – 1 6 8 8 iii-256; O. Millar (ed.), ‘The Inventories and Valuations of the King’s Goods 1649–1651, The Walpole Society 43 (1970–72), pp. vii-458; E. Griffey and C. Hibbard, ‘Courtly magniicence and hidden politics: Henrietta Maria’s inventory at Colombes’, Journal of the History of Collections 24 (2012), pp. 159–81 and online supplement; Anonymous, King Charles II’s Collection, An Inventory of All His Majesties Pictures in Whitehall, in Hampton Court and in Stoare, Copy of a contemporary MS. in the possession of H. M. The Queen, (London, 1922) (unpublished transcription of the manuscript in the Ofice of the Surveyor, St James’s Palace, OM16; cited hereafter as Charles II inventory); W. Bathoe (ed.), Catalogue of the Collection of Pictures, &c. Belonging to King James the Second (London, 1758). See also Anonymous, Royal Inventory of Pictures, Statues, etc. at Whitehall, Hampton Court, Windsor Castle, St. James’s, and in the Queen Dowager’s Custody (between 1686 and 1689), Glasgow University Library MS 238. On the relationship between the Bathoe edition (based on Harley MS 1890) and Hunter MS 238, with an indispensable guide to the room locations, and a convincing rationale for dating the Whitehall sections to early 1685 and those relating to Windsor to 1688; see A. Barclay, ‘The inventories of the English royal collection, temp. James II’, Journal of the History of Collections 22 (2010), pp. 1–13, especially the online supplement. Inventories of the later Stuarts, including William and Mary and Anne, are not examined here. For references to these inventories, see O. Millar, The Tudor, Stuart and Early Georgian Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty The Queen (London, 1963), pp. 37–8. exactly as some of the portraits can be dificult to disentangle. For example, the equestrian portrait of the king on a dun horse was known in two versions from Van der Doort, who mentions both the ‘modell’ that hung in the Chair Room at Whitehall and the ‘greate’ one that hung in the Princes Gallery at Hampton Court; Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 62 no. 2. The ‘greate’ one, which is independently listed in the Commonwealth sale inventories (Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 316 no. 283), did not return to the British Royal Collection. For the provenance, see O. Millar in S. Barnes et al., Van Dyck, A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings (London and New Haven, 2004), p. 468. However two further versions of this portrait of Charles I, again speciied as a portrait of him on a dun horse, appear in the 1685–8 inventory of James II. See Bathoe, op. cit. (note 3), p. 31 no. 359, p. 91 no. 1076. 13 Charles II inventory, op. cit. (note 3), p. 50, no. 637; Bathoe, op. cit. (note 3), p. 33, no. 382. Seascapes survive in the backgrounds of some of Van Dyck’s portraits, such as the two Rijksmuseum portraits of men from the Van der Burght family, and the Metropolitan Museum portrait of Robert Rich, 2nd Earl of Warwick. 14 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MS A341, Inventory of York House, 1635, nos. 1 and 67: ‘One great Peice being Scipio’ and ‘A Little head’. 15 Van der Doort’s entry for the equestrian portrait of the king elaborates that the image is ‘the irst moddell of – ye king in greate on horseback wch is at this time in the – Princes Gallory at Hampton Court’; Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 62, no. 2. Thus, there were two versions of this portrait displayed in Stuart royal palaces during the time of Van der Doort, being those now at Windsor and in the National Gallery, London. See Millar, op. cit. [1963] (note 3), pp. 94–5. 4 For example, the vast majority of the pictures catalogued by Van der Doort are at Whitehall Palace, but his other lists and notes show that there were important pictures at other palaces as well. Charles II’s c.1666–7 inventory only includes Whitehall and Hampton Court and James II’s only Whitehall, Hampton Court, Windsor and St James’s. 16 Millar, op. cit. [2004] (note 6), pp. 468–9. 5 On Van der Doort, see Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), pp. xiii-xvii. 17 Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 226, no. 1. Note, however, that the works at St James’s were included in Millar’s edition of Van der Doort, pp. 226–8, but this catalogue was not written by Van der Doort. It seems to have been written in 1640. On this manuscript, in the Library of the Victoria and Albert Museum, MS 86. J.13, see Millar, pp. xxiii-xxiv. 6 Millar’s edition of Van der Doort comprises four different manuscripts; on these, see Millar, op. cit. [1960], pp. xvii-xxii. 7 No drawings by Van Dyck are listed in these inventories. However a grisaille oil sketch for the procession of the Order of the Garter is listed in both the c.1639 and 1649–51 inventories: Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 158 no. 10; Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 151 no. 2. See also Barclay, op. cit. (note 3). 18 Van der Doort’s inventory is dominated by works at Whitehall, with few listed from Hampton Court and Somerset House. There are some entries in Van der Doort for works at St James’s (Gallery), Greenwich, particularly the Queen’s Gallery, as well as at Nonsuch. 8 Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 180 no. 6. 19 Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 38, no. 4. B. Grosvenor has recently identiied this as the portrait in a private collection, recently placed on display at the Rubenshuis. See ‘A Selfportrait by Sir Anthony van Dyck (1599 – 1741) from the collection of Charles I’, British Art Journal 16 no. 3 (2015–16), pp. 2–7. 9 Polygraphice, or, The art of drawing, engraving, etching, limning, painting, washing, varnishing, colouring, and dying in three books, 2nd edn (London, 1673), p. 224. 10 S. Orso, Philip IV and the Decoration of the Alcázar of Madrid (Princeton, 1986); see especially pp. 28–31, quote from p. 28. On the dominance of Titian pictures in the bóvedas del Tiziano, see p. 30. 20 21 22 23 24 Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 37 no. 2; p. 38 nos. 4–5. Ibid., p. 7, no. 34, p. 2 no. 3. Ibid., p. 6 no. 24. Ibid., p. 58 no. 91. Charles I paid Van Dyck £25 for ‘the Arch Dutchesse at length’ on 8 August 1632; Hookham Carpenter, op. cit. (note 1), p. 71. 25 Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 197, no. 21, p. 194 no. 3. 26 Ibid., p. 177 no. 33; Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 300 no. 30, as at Somerset House. This picture does not survive. For an impression of the lost original, see the picture in the 11 It is worth noting that Charles I apparently directed Van der Doort to ‘mak a not’ [make a note] of all of the king’s paintings by Titian; Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), pp. 183–4. Titian pictures were placed prominently in Whitehall and also displayed at St. James’s, Somerset House, Hampton Court and Oatlands. 12 This igure includes the grisaille oil sketch (see note 7) but not the perspective piece that Van Dyck did not complete. It includes the second version of the ‘dunn horse’ portrait, even though strictly speaking it is not given its own entry by Van der Doort. These calculations are dificult to determine 61 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 ERIN GRIFFEY 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence; H. Vey, in Barnes et al., op. cit. (note 12), p. 397, no. III.A1. Thus called in the 8 August 1632 warrant issued to pay Van Dyck £100 for ‘One greate peece of or royall selfe, Consort and children’; Hookham Carpenter, op. cit. (note 1), p. 71. Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 35, no. 1; ibid., p. 177, no. 33. Ibid., pp. 42–60 (102 pictures), with additional pictures on p. 181 (three pictures) and p. 193 (eight pictures). The sculptures are listed on pp. 165–70. Others were German, Spanish, or by an unnamed artist. Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 49 nos. 39, 41. Outside the Bear Gallery, Mytens only had two other works listed by Van der Doort: a portrait of Prince Henry in the king’s bedchamber and his self-portrait, in the ‘litle’ room at the end of the Long Gallery; see ibid., p. 35 no. 3 and p. 38 no. 5. Ibid., p. 38 no. 5 and p. 35 no. 3. Ibid., pp. 226–8; recall that these pictures are listed in the Victoria and Albert Museum MS 86.J.13 (see note 17), which was not written by Van der Doort but was published by Millar as an appendix to Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3). Van Dyck’s pictures are listed on p. 226 nos. 1, 7, and p. 227 no. 46. See M. C. Volk, ‘Rubens in Madrid and the decoration of the Salón Nuevo in the Palace’, Burlington Magazine 122 no. 924 (1980), pp. 168–80. For more on the decoration of the Salón Nuevo, including a reconstruction of the arrangement of pictures, see Orso, op. cit. (note 10), esp. pp. 32–117. The 1636 inventory is transcribed in Appendix C, pp. 189–91; thirty paintings are listed in this inventory, while at St James’s in c.1640 there were ifty-ive. Volk, op. cit. (note 35), p. 171. On the red sash, see ibid., p. 171 note 12. Giovanni Bellori, Le vite de’ pittori, scultori et architetti moderni (Rome, 1672), p. 262. This version does not seem to have survived, but a version is in the Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti. Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 194 no. 3. Ibid., pp. 176–7, nos. 30–32. In the same room was a further Virgin and Child by ‘done in ffraunc’. but the connection with a life study is rarely made. Van der Doort also regularly describes the scale of a person in relation to life-size, and only very rarely (twice by my count) refers to a work being made after life. See for example his description of a self-portrait of Il Pordenone, p. 45 no. 19: ‘painted by himselfe after himselfe by the life’. See also the entry to the Peter Oliver miniature of Henrietta Maria ‘by the life’, p. 106 no. 14. 50 Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 269 no. 206 (St James’s), p. 319 no. 319. 51 Ibid., p. 70 no. 29. 52 See ibid. Some of the entries state this, for example p. 298, where reference is made to the list of artworks that are at Somerset House but came from Whitehall and St James’s. Copies often add if a work is a Somerset House, Whitehall or St James’s ‘piece’, but this is not consistently done. 53 See also E. Griffey, On Display: Henrietta Maria and the materials of magniicence at the Stuart court (London and New Haven, 2016), p. 130. 54 On the copy, by Remigius van Leemput, see D. Howarth, Images of Rule: Art and Politics in the English Renaissance, 1585–1659 (Berkeley, 1997), p. 145; Millar, op. cit. [1963] (note 3), p. 98. For the entry in the Commonwealth sale inventories, see Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 206 no. 336. While the copy may thus have been intended for Hampton Court along with other works displayed there for the king, he would not enjoy them there long. By 12 August 1647 Charles was moved to Oatlands. 55 Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 206 nos 337, 338. 56 Ibid., p. 206 nos. 333–5. See also Millar, in Barnes et al., op. cit. (note 12), pp. 470–71. The larger version of the equestrian portrait on the dun horse was in the Gallery at Somerset House; Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 316 no. 283. 57 These igures are approximate, since not all pictures are clearly linked to one speciic house. The eight Cross Gallery portraits were clearly intended for Somerset House, and the Rinaldo and Armida is described as a Somerset House piece (Millar, op. cit. [1972] note 3, p. 316 no. 279), as is the double portrait with the laurel leaf (p. 317 no. 354). The Three Eldest Children is known to have been made for the queen’s Drawing Room at Somerset House, and the Virgin and Child with Angels is also known to have been made for the queen. 41 Ibid., p. 42 no. 1. The 1636 inventory of the Alcázar also includes many descriptions of frames. See Orso, op. cit. (note 10), pp. 189–92. 42 Millar, op. cit. [1960], p. 35 no. 1; p. 26 no. 20. 43 Now in the Louvre, inv. no. 1238. 44 Millar, op. cit. [1960], p. 2 no. 3; p. 7 no. 35; p. 43 no. 10. 45 Ibid., p. 58, no. 91. 46 TNA, SP 16/406 (16); transcribed in Hookham Carpenter, op. cit. (note 1), p. 67. 47 TNA, SP 16/406 (16); transcribed in Hookham Carpenter, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 67–8. 48 C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait (eds), Acts and Ordinances (London, 1911), vol. II, pp. 162–3, and for the second Act, pp. 546–8. 49 Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 67 no. 109. See H. Vey, in Barnes et al., op. cit. (note 12), p. 319. By my calculations, this is one of only ten instances of a picture being described as being made after life in the Commonwealth sale inventories. See for example, p. 298 no. 3, and p. 315 no. 269. Others are described as ‘big’ as or ‘less’ than life-size in relation to scale, 58 Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 226 no. 7, as at St James’s; Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 269 no. 202. This is listed amongst works categorized, p. 256, as ‘of St James’s’, in the Commonwealth sale inventories. 59 Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 273 no. 279; see also Millar, in Barnes et al., op. cit. (note 12), p. 462. Note that there was another unattributed painting of ‘The King on horsback’ listed amongst works from St James’s, Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 273 no. 272. 60 Ibid., p. 67 no. 109, p. 217 no. 1. 61 Ibid., p. 198 nos. 203, 204. 62 Ibid., p. 300 no. 30. 63 Ibid., p. 317 no. 354, p. 313 no. 233, p. 300 no. 30, pp. 318–19. This igure does not include the equestrian portrait listed in the Gallery since it is listed as a St James’s piece, p. 316 no. 283. 64 Ibid., p. 316 no. 279. 65 Ibid., pp. 318–19. 62 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 VA N D Y C K P A I N T I N G S I N S T U A R T R O YA L I N V E N T O R I E S , 1 6 3 9 – 1 6 8 8 87 The fourteen pictures that seem clearly designated as self-portraits are accompanied by the phrase ‘by himself ’ or ‘by herself ’. In addition, there is the so-called portrait of Van Dyck by Rubens, as well as four ‘pictures’ of other artists. There are a few exceptions, but the room was almost completely covered with heads. See for example the head of a young woman, a work not found in Charles II’s inventory, Bathoe, op. cit. (note 3), p. 10 no. 111; a woman’s head with lowers, p. 11 no. 115. The only history painting was a Bassano depiction of the Good Samaritan, p. 11 no. 121. The addition, since c.1666–67 of a ‘picture of a book upon the closet door’, p. 12 no. 136, suggests a playful quality, and again underscores the links with reading in this passage. This playfulness is further displayed in the ‘picture of a fool in a black cap looking through a window’ attributed to Holbein, p. 12 no. 137, and which was also in the same passage in the earlier inventory. 66 Three manuscript copies of the lost 1619 original inventory are held in the Duchy of Cornwall Ofice. The inventory has been transcribed by M.T.W. Payne, ‘An inventory of Queen Anne of Denmark’s “ornaments, furniture, household stuffe, and other parcells” at Denmark House, 1619’, Journal of the History of Collections 13 (2001), pp. 23–44. 67 Hookham Carpenter, op. cit. (note 1) p. 71. 68 Ibid., p. 67. 69 See my discussion in this respect in Griffey, op. cit. (note 53), p. 120. 70 For more on the inventory and its contents, see Griffey and Hibbard, op. cit. (note 3). 71 Bathoe, op. cit. (note 3), p. 14 no. 155, p. 42 no. 483. 72 Ibid., p. 43 no. 466, p. 46 no. 533, p. 49 no. 618, p. 50 nos. 635, 637. 73 Ibid., p. 79 no. 80. 74 Ibid., p. 1 no. 1. 75 Ibid., p. 15 no. 240, p. 10 no. 162. 76 Ibid., pp. 16–18. Other works listed in this room have vague descriptions that may relate to self-portraits, such as p. 16 no. 271, p. 17 no. 275, and nos. 286–8. 77 Bathoe, op. cit. (note 3), p. 31 no. 359. 78 Ibid., p. 91 no. 1076. 79 Millar, op. cit. [1963] (note 3), p. 95. See the Inventory of household goods and pictures of James, Duke of York, 1 June 1674, Bodleian Library MS Bodl. 891, fol. 16v no. 4; transcribed in Paul Mellon Centre, Ellis Waterhouse archive, box ‘E.K.W. archive’ folder ‘J’; in ‘The art world in Britain 1660 to 1735,’ at http://artworld.york.ac.uk; accessed 22 August 2016. This 1674 inventory, comprising ifty-two pictures, includes no attributed works, which is why it is not used in the broader analysis of this article. 80 Bathoe, op. cit. (note 3), p. 33 no. 382, p. 40 no. 464, p. 38 no. 441, p. 66 no. 745, p. 68 no. 771. The studio portraits of Kenelm and Venetia Digby are both currently in the Royal Collection: RCIN 402903 and RCIN 653619. The portrait of Henrietta Maria ‘side face’ is in the Royal Collection: RCIN 400159. There is another version proile portrait in Memphis, Memphis Brooks Museum of Art. 81 Bathoe, op. cit. (note 3), p. 9 no. 93; Hunter MS, op. cit. (note 3), fol. 42 no. 93. 82 Bathoe, op. cit. (note 3), p. 15 no. 173, p. 31 no. 359. 83 Ibid., p. 38 no. 441. 84 Ibid., p. 29 no. 330. 85 Ibid., p. 9 no. 93, and nos 94–6. 86 Ibid., p. 11 no. 124. 88 Bathoe op. cit. (note 3), p. 67 no. 753. 89 Ibid., p. 67 no. 750. On the autograph (Rijksmuseum) version and its provenance, see Millar, in Barnes et al., op. cit. (note 12), p. 616. 90 Bathoe, op. cit. (note 3), p. 14 no. 159. 91 Ibid., p. 42 no. 483. 92 Ibid., p. 43 no. 498. 93 Ibid., p. 91 no. 1076. 94 Ibid., p. 91 nos 1084–5. 95 Ibid., p. 68 no. 771. 96 Ibid., p. 67 nos. 750–53. 97 This iconography relates to Verrio’s illusionistic fresco painting (now lost) in the King’s Chapel at Windsor. As such this painting may be related to RCIN 404052. 98 The copyists of the larger portraits are not named in these cases. The miniaturists are named. The portrait of the Countess of Dorset was in storage at Whitehall, Bathoe, op. cit. (note 3), p. 27 no. 304; the Richard Gibson miniature of Henrietta Maria was also in storage at Whitehall, p. 30 no. 337; the John Hoskins miniature of Henrietta Maria was in the king’s closet at Whitehall, p. 45 no. 523; and the portrait of Charles II ‘when he was a child’ was in storage at St James’s, p. 100 no. 1238. 99 Charles II inventory, op. cit. (note 3), p. 24 no. 414, p. 72 no. 17, p. 79 no. 73. It is unclear if this is the same Hoskins copy of a Van Dyck portrait of Henrietta Maria as that listed in the 1685–8 inventory. 100 101 102 103 63 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/30/1/49/3861862 by University of Auckland user on 29 April 2018 Millar, op. cit. [1972] (note 3), p. 206 no. 336. Millar, op. cit. [1960] (note 3), p. 68 no. 32. Ibid., p. 122 no. 76. Ibid., p. 122 no. 76.