Completed Dress and Textiles, London: Artists and Subjects, Portraits: British 18th C, Portraits: British 19th C 34 Could the artist be Robert Home (1752–1834)? Who is the sitter, if not the physician and naturalist Alexander Russell (1715–1768)?

Based on the sitter's apparent age, dress and hair, he is not someone born in 1715 but later, c. 1750.

If this is by Home, it seems above his average level.

I have to agree with Jacinto, if this is by Home it's the best portrait he ever painted. Besides his own. https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw03219/Robert-Home?LinkID=mp02250&role=sit&rNo=0 and there are no similarities. Too much Normal Guy Character exuding from the painting to be Reynolds. Romney wasn't this good not with Men anyway. Not painterly enough for Gainsborough. Should I point out it feels American. Just a Guy in his Best Coat and Shirt with a pleased look on his face.
It Could be Sir Henry Raeburn. It's of that quality. But even Raeburn's regular guy portraits have a feel about them that's lacking here.
This is an engraving that purports to be your suggested sitter. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Portrait_of_Alexander_Russell_by_T._Trotter_Wellcome_L0011163.jpg

Input from a costume expert to narrow down the date would be of use.

Whilst waiting for a Costume Expert I Looked around some more. Yeah I Know I don't have a life. Anyway,lol. Take a look at his self portraits as well as some of his portraits. Notice the same green in the background and the faces that look present and not about to go off and conquer the world. He appears to be mostly forgotten. He Trained in London, very talented, and then moved back to the Midlands. https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/search/actor:wright-of-derby-joseph-17341797/page/7 and the winner is Joseph Wright. Maybe.

From my experience as a curator at the National Portrait Gallery, this portrait can be dated to the 1790s from the style of the neck tie and the hair. To return to the original questions for this discussion:

Could the artist be Robert Home (1752–1834)? This seems unlikely.

Who is the sitter, if not the physician and naturalist Alexander Russell (1715–1768)? As stated at the outset of this discussion, the portrait is probably of a man from a later generation of the Russell family. It has a Russell provenance. I propose to keep this discussion open until the ‘sitter’ files at the National Portrait Gallery, in particular the Russell files, become available for consultation again.

It's difficult to be sure without a much better image but it certainly seems to me as quite likely to be Robert Home. I have handled a number of his portraits over the last 10 years and this looks quite plausible. His style was variable without doubt and some of his portraits are much better than others. I think it will date to the mid 1790's the clothes almost identical to the portrait of Bazett (link below) which was painted either 1795 or 1796.

The fact it has a Russell provenance would be enough to do a quick check in Home's sitter books at the NPG for a sitter fitting the dateline and the possible surname name. It would be a start at the least.

A couple of Home's to compare:

https://www.milesbarton.com/product/richard-campbell-bazett-1766-1833/

https://www.milesbarton.com/product/william-edmeades-1766-1852/

I would agree with Miles that this is by Home. Yes, Home's sitter book is the next place to check.

From the dress and hairstyle I think this portrait dates from the early to mid 1790s. Compare for example Wright's picture of Samuel Oldknow:

https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/samuel-oldknow-17561828-38564

One obvious candidate would be Sir William Russell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_William_Russell,_1st_Baronet,_of_Charlton_Park

who I think is the of the same family (the Russells of Roseburne) as Alexander Russell who this was traditionally identified as. He was born in 1773 and after qualifying at Edinburgh went to Calcutta to practice. This would probably at the age of 20-21, so in 1793-4 which would tie in with the dress.

Of course Home is in India from 1791 and in Calcutta from 1795, so this could have been painted there, fairly soon after. And it being a portrait of an eminent physician also explains why it was given to the RCP - even if which Dr Russell it is has got lost since.

Sir William's baronetcy died out in 1915 with the death of his grandson, but the Misses Russell who donated it could be the latter's daughters and/or nieces (his brother died in 1914).

I made my previous post before I had another good look at the two portraits that Miles Barton linked to above and I hadn't realised just how much they reinforce the date and Indian setting of this portrait. The picture of Richard Campbell Bazett in particular shows identical dress in colour and shape: same coat in the same colour with the same collar and large flap at the back; same white lining; same neckwear; same haircut. Edmeades' is also similar, though you can't see if there is a flap. If the East India Company Service didn't have a uniform for their officials there was clearly a 'look' they were supposed to have.

The only difference is that this sitter's is powdered (as is Edmeades' in the other portrait). That big flap seems to have been to protect the clothing from powder during wear. But using hair powder went rapidly out of fashion from the mid-90s as looks became ever-more 'natural' and in response to Pitt's tax of 1795. So again we are looking at that sort of date for the portrait.

The Russell family tree has the usual problems for the period and social status (large numbers of children from several wives over long periods; same forenames used again and again; cousin marriage) but I reckon this (later Sir) William was the nephew of the Alexander this was previously said to be. The large generation gap is because this William was the baby of the family, born when his father was 61. Confusingly the sources also give an older brother called William (b 1755) described as a 'surgeon in Edinburgh', possibly just deceased before the birth of this one was born, though about 18 would be youngish to qualify and practice.

I suppose this could have been painted before Russell left for India, but otherwise Home would be the obvious contender to have produced this (Hickey is elsewhere 1791-8). The only objection is that given above - that it would have to be the best thing he ever produced, but then something has to be. It may be he was doing his best to impress in a new market or that this has been particularly well looked-after.

I find Miles’s comparisons in his post of 16 February compelling and I now accept the attribution to Robert Home.

Looking at Home’s sitter book for the years 1795 until 1800, there is an entry under sitters in December 1795: “13 December 1795 Mr. Russell. Head”. And a payment in March 1796: “9 March 1796 Mr. Russell.” Our portrait is indeed a head in Home’s terminology.

Mark’s suggestion (1 June) that our portrait could be of Sir William Russell, 1st Baronet (1773-1839) is a very helpful one. It may not be easy to verify the idea.

There is a reference to the “Misses Russell” in an article (attached) in ‘The Scotsman’ of June 8, 1949, about London auctions. At the time of the donation in 1958, perhaps everyone in the fine art world knew who they were.

That may prove a very valuable find, Marcie. Two(?) unmarried Russell sisters selling what was likely a Scottish family heirloom in London in 1949 stand a very good chance of being the same unmarried Russell sisters who presented our portrait to the RCP in 1958. Better still, the sale was at Christie's, and being more than 50 years ago we may be able to get an address and/or first name or initials from Christie's Archive.

I'm attaching the 1915 Burke's Peerage entry for the relevant Russell baronets, of Charlton Park. It is not apparent from that how the reputed sitter Alexander Russell (1715–1768) fits into the family, though their strong medical tradition makes it likely that he does. Nor is there any sign anywhere of two unmarried daughters who might be the donors - indeed the third and last baronet seems to have died unmarried and sine prole. They could, however, have been descendants of one the first Sir William's many elder brothers, and thus quite likely inheritors of family chattels when the male line of the baronet's descendants failed and the baronetcy expired.

The Burke's genealogy does, though, reveal another plausible candidate for Home's 'Mr Russell'. Among those elder brothers of the first Sir William were two others in the HEICo's service. One, Daniel, died too early (in 1787), but the other (1760-1826) was actually called Alexander. Perhaps the family tradition was quite right that the portrait was of Alexander Russell, but not the one they thought. That seems even more likely as this Alexander died without issue - it would be unsurprising if his portrait then passed to a brother or nephew, but that as a rather distant relation to later family members his identity became lost or confused. There is no obvious sign that this later Alexander was a medical man - but there's nothing in the portrait or Home's sitter book to suggest that he actually was.

More research required, but I won't be able to do much until the week after next. Christie's Archive is an obvious first step, I feel.

Alexander Russell (1760-1826) *was* a surgeon in India, which must make him an even stronger candidate. See attached from 'Roll of the Indian Medical Service 1615-1930' - also attaching key to relevant abbreviations.

His Will was proved at the PCC in June 1826, and is available on both the NA website and Ancestry. I don't have time to read it just now, I'm afraid, so if someone else wants to check it for anything relevant, go ahead.

One day, someone might be able to check the unpublished biography of Robert Home held by the British Library: Asian and African Studies for references to “Mr. Russell”.

Reference: Mss Eur Photo Eur 331
'Without Permit': copy of unpublished biography, dated c1920, by Ella B Day (neé Home) of Robert Home (1752-1834), Court Painter to the King of Oudh 1814-25, including description of his life in India from 1791 until his death.
https://tinyurl.com/hxnmkmss

The "Misses Russell' who donated this work were "the Misses Russell of Canterbury". See item #3 of the attached snippet and the page numbered 281 of this document by Janet Starkey:

https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/7865/StarkeyAppendices.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Here is a link to Janet Starkey's study "No myopic mirage: Alexander and Patrick Russell in Aleppo" (2002):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232955942_No_myopic_mirage_Alexander_and_Patrick_Russell_in_Aleppo

***

In 1958, the most likely "Misses Russell of Canterbury" would have been three of the daughters of Major-General John Cecil Russell (1839–1909) and his wife Hester Frances Russell (née Thornhill)(1844–1918) of Barton Court, Canterbury.

The couple had seven daughters: Magdalene (1869–1946), Minna (1872–1941), Brenda (1872–1957), Hester Frances (1878–1961), Alexandra Alberta (1883–1966), Cecil (1886–1973) and Joan (1888–1972). The dates are from a family tree on Ancestry. I have attached John's obituary and the family's 1911 Census entry.

I did not order John's will since he would have bequeathed his estate to his wife. His wife Hester did not mention works of art in her will (1903) and codicil (1909). She excluded her daughter Hester Frances from her estate since she was provided for following her marriage to Hugh Burdett Money-Coutts.

Alexandra Alberta Russell, Cecil Russell and Joan Russell were likely "the Misses Russell" who donated this work. It was likely donated due to an agreement the sisters had made with their sister Brenda Russell (d. 16 December 1957).

Brenda did not mention works of art in her will (3 June 1948) but she did mention that a memorandum might accompany her will. She made bequests to her sisters Alexandra Alberta, Cecil and Joan but not to Hester Frances. The date of probate was 2 May 1958.

***

In 1958, Miss A.A. Russell (likely Alexandra Alberta Russell) also donated a portrait to the British Library. Note that it was signed by the artist (Philippe Mercier) and inscribed "Aged 79". Its current title is 'Dr Alexander Russell of Braidshaw' but it is probably the portrait that was discussed in item #1 ('Claude Russell (1733–1820)') and item #2 ('John Russell WS of Braidshaw (1671/1672–27January 1759)') of the attached snippet.

https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/dr-alexander-russell-of-braidshaw-191064

The "Misses Russell' who sold the Jacobite glass that was mentioned in the newspaper article from 1949 (10/11/2021 21:31) were from Edinburgh. One of the research notes on the Bonham's website when that glass was sold at auction on 1 October 2003 states: "This glass has been known as the ‘Russell Amen’ as it belonged to the Russell family of Edinburgh from at least the 1880s until 1949."

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/10544/lot/162/

That family might be the family of doctors discussed at the following link:

https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/journal/issue/vol31_no4/Q_The_Russells.pdf

Since the patriarch of that family passed away in 1940, it makes sense that his daughters would have sold the valuable glass but it does not make sense that they would have donated works of art to establishments in London.

I did a lot of work on all this a year ago, and have masses more information about the (almost certain) sitter, the East India Company surgeon (and later doctor) Alexander Russel[l] (1760-1826)...but as ever failed to collate and post it at the time. I will endeavour to to do so over the next couple of weeks, though HMRC's self-assessment deadline on the 31st will divide my attention for a while.

The Misses Russell, donors of this and the other portraits, and the sellers of the Jacobite glass in 1949, are all the same people, and were indeed two** or more of the seven daughters of Maj-General John Cecil Russell (1839-1909). Bonhams' research note is slightly unclear (and/or you're taking it too literally). Many members of this Russell family were historically of Edinburgh; but though born in Scotland, John Cecil joined an English regiment (as thousands of Scots did), and when not overseas with them, was based in England. Ultimately he settled in Canterbury where he bought a large house, Barton Court, in 1902, and his unmarried daughters continued to live there after his death. Not that there would be anything remotely unusual in a Scot giving works of art to London-based collections, especially great ones like the British Library - we are all still British, Marcie, even if some north of the border would wish it otherwise! Furthermore, the BL holds by far the most important collection to do with British India, including all the HEICo and India Office records.

(**At least one newspaper report of the glass's sale says the 'Misses Russell' were just two in number - see attached)

There is much more detail and evidence to share in due course, but the basic genealogy is that Maj-General Russell, father of our donor(s), was the great-grandson of Alexander Russell’s elder brother John (1753-1792), who was like his father and other family members, an Edinburgh-based ‘Clerk to the Signet’ (a Scottish legal qualification). I’m attaching a page from Burke’s Peerage 1915 that I posted before, but to which I’ve now added (in green) a simplified tree showing this descent.

Alexander died in 1826 in London unmarried and without issue. I can’t remember at the moment what I concluded about the route the portrait (if he) may have taken to its later owners, but will re-familiarize myself with that and the rest of the research findings in the next week or two.

Thanks for that interesting information, Osmund. I have ordered the wills of Minna, Magdalene, Alexandra Alberta, Joan and Cecil Russell. I will add to the discussion only if one of the wills contains something that should be brought to light.

Well, it's your money...but it would be surprising if there's any mention of the portrait in the Wills of Alexandra (d.1966), Joan (d.1972) or Cecil (d.1973), as it was donated to the Collection well within their lifetimes (and the year after the death of Brenda, which presumably triggered the gift). In any case we already know that the portrait came from the sisters, and that the family apparently believed it was of the earlier (and far better-known) medical Alexander Russell.

If it *is* specifically mentioned anywhere it will probably be as just 'the portrait of Alexander Russell'; in fact it is highly probable that by 1958 - long before the internet-led explosion in family history interest - no-one in the family would even have known of the later Alexander Russell, given he was born almost two centuries before, was one of nine siblings (seven of them sons), never married or had children, was not notable for an outstanding career or great longevity, and spent most of his adult life in India. Even today how many people know anything about their great-great-grandfather's younger brother?

I guess I was just curious, Osmund. The five wills have arrived. Magdalene’s will was the most interesting one to read – she was the eldest sibling. It included a lengthy and quite fascinating list of bequests. The list did not include a Jacobite glass. Other than a portrait of her paternal grandfather, which she bequeathed to a nephew, she left the family portraits to “such of my sisters as shall be unmarried at my death and to be disposed of as they or the majority in case of difference shall determine”. Both Magdalene and Minna drafted their wills on 30 July 1940.

Alexandra Alberta’s will was drafted on 15 May 1939 – before the death of Minna (in 1941) and Magdalene (in 1946). A brief codicil was drafted in 1959. Cecil and Joan both drafted their wills on 5 July 1969.

I'm proposing to summarise this discussion early next week. But I see that much research has been done on the sitter and his family. Anything more to say?

I did extensive work on this 2021-23, focusing on the surgeon Alexander Russel(l) [1760-1826], his younger brother (Sir) William Russell [1773-1789], and any other Russel(l)s who might have been in Calcutta in 1790s. There are good runs in several places of annual East India registers, calendars and directories viewable online, and I’ve checked the information in them against that found in Crawford’s ‘Roll of the Indian Medical Service 1615-1930’, and numerous other sources given on the FIBIS website and elsewhere. I also did half a day at the Heinz Archive, and as well as checking the sitter & artist boxes, had a thorough look at Robert Home’s sitters book (see Jacob’s post 10/11/2021 16:41) for any later portraits of the Russel(l) family that might help clarify which member of the family Home's 1795 sitter ‘Mr Russel’ was. There are in fact several, and I believe they do just that.

With the clock ticking (and much else to do), I’ll try and edit things down, but some clarity may be lost thereby. However, there is no longer any doubt in my mind that our sitter is Alexander the surgeon (and later also an MD), elder brother of Sir William Russell 1st Bt, and that the family subsequently confused him with his earlier namesake Dr Alexander Russell of Aleppo [1714-1768]. Mark Wilson (09/06/2021) was right to suggest that Sir William was a nephew of the earlier Alexander, and so therefore was his elder brother Alexander.

First, some of the complex family structure needs to be set out, and tied in with any Russells who were in India at around the right time. I’m attaching again (but further amended) the Burke’s Peerage page that covers some of this – a new and clear family tree would be better, but there’s no time for that.

John Russell of Braidshaw [1672-1759] married three times. By his second wife Ursula Alexander he had three sons, John, William and Alexander:

The youngest, Alexander, was the well-known Dr Alexander Russell of Aleppo (qv in last post above).
The eldest was the lawyer John Russell of Roseburn [1710-1796].

John Russell of Roseburn had seven sons (and two daughters):

The eldest, John Russell [1753-92] was the direct ancestor of the portrait’s donors - John’s great-grandson Maj-Genl John Cecil Russell [1839-1909] was the father of the Misses Russell of Canterbury.
The second, Daniel Russell [1757-87] was a civil servant in the E. India Co’s service, but died too early to be relevant here. He was in any case based in the Madras Presidency, a long way south.
The fourth, Alexander Russell [1760-1826] was a surgeon in the E.I.Co’s service in Bengal (and later became an MD), and is (I believe) beyond reasonable doubt our sitter.
The seventh, William Russell [1773-1839] was also an EIC surgeon, and a successful physician in Calcutta (he introduced vaccination to Bengal). On his return to England he was created a baronet for his work in the 1831 London Cholera epidemic. He will feature in this narrative again shortly.

Returning to John Russell of Braidshaw, by his third wife Mary Anderson he had four surviving sons, two of whom had careers in India:

The elder was Dr Patrick Russell [1727-1805], who joined his half-brother Dr Alexander R. at Aleppo in 1750, and later succeeded him there as physician to the English trading ‘factory’.**
The younger was Claud Russell [1732-1820], later of Binfield, Berks, who was a civil servant in the Madras Presidency and later member of the Governor’s Council. He left India for a while thereafter, but was recalled in 1781 as Administrator of Vizagapatam. His brother Dr Patrick joined him there as personal physician, and was later employed as a member of the province’s medical service, and also as official botanist to the EIC in the region. The two brothers returned to England together in 1789/90, so again cannot be relevant to events in Calcutta in the mid-1790s.

Claud Russell of Binfield had at least two sons and three daughters:

Claud Russell [1779-1817] was a civil servant in Bengal, and later a senior judge in Benares (where he died); he, too, will feature later in the story.
Charles Dupré Russell [1796-1878] was also a Bengal civil servant, but did not arrive in India until Nov 1814, so can be discounted.
Two of the three daughters married two of the sons of John Russell of Roseburn, their first cousins - Elizabeth & Sophia to, respectively, Daniel & William (qv in last post).

**A full account of Dr Alexander and Dr Patrick in Aleppo can be read here: https://tinyurl.com/2sn6awe9

So we are left with three members of the family in Calcutta at the right sort of time, the brothers Alexander and William, and their first cousin Claud junr.

There were in addition two more Russells there, but of an unrelated family – the judge Sir Henry Russell [1751-1836], later 1st baronet of Swallowfield Park, and his son Henry [1783-1852], a civil servant. The sitters book shows that Sir Henry himself had a portrait painted by Home in 1804/5; but both he and his son did not arrive in Calcutta till 1798, so can be ruled out. Two other sons of his, Charles [b.1786] & Francis Whitworth [b.1790], also came out to India, but did not arrive until 1802 & 1808 respectively.

Other than these I have found no other non-military Russells in Bengal at this time, and the couple of military ones were senior officers who would doubtless have been described as such in the sitters book. I can also see no evidence that they were ever based in Calcutta.

Drilling down further, (Sir) William Russell was appointed an Assistant Surgeon on the Bengal Establishment in April 1797, but did not arrive in India till late that year or early the next. And Claud Russell junr was appointed to the Bengal Civil Service in March 1796, but first arrived in India in Feb 1797.

So by good fortune we are left with just one man standing, Alexander Russel(l) the surgeon. Having arrived in India in 1783, in 1795 he was Assistant Apothecary at Fort William (Calcutta), and Surgeon to the 24 Pergunnahs (the large district of West Bengal in which Calcutta lay).

It is worth mentioning that in contemporary sources Alexander’s surname is frequently found spelled ‘Russel’ [sic], and that is how Home’s 1795 sitter appears in the account book.

And there is more to come...so be grateful I wasn't able to do the full version.

Turning to Home's list of sitters and payments, I am attaching images of the pages/sections that are relevant to our enquiry, but here is a transcript. The first date is when the portrait was begun, the second when it was paid for, and by whom (and/or on whose behalf). The price is in Sicca Rupees ‘SR’:

1795 Dec 13 Mr: Russel head – 500 SR / 1796 Mar 9 Mr: Russel – 500 SR (Our portrait)
1802 Jun C. Russell head – 500 SR / 1802 Nov Mr: Russell – 500 SR
1804 Dec Sir H. Russell head – 500 SR / 1805 Feb Sir Hy: Russell - 500 SR
1806 Dec Mrs: Russell head – 500 SR / 1807 May Mr: A. Russell for Mrs: Russell – 500 SR
1813 Dec Two Miss Russells full lengths – 1600 SR* / 1814 [no month] The Miss Russells – 1600 SR*

[*i.e. 800 each. By 1809 Home was finding it hard to attract customers, and in June that year he reduced his prices by around 20%. He confuses the issue by giving the new prices in Gold Mohurs, with an apparent exchange rate to (silver) Rupees of 20 to 1 (though the official rate was 15 or 16). Full lengths were priced at 100 Mohurs (or 2000 Rupees), so at 800 Rupees these must have been small children’s portraits, of which there are a number on the same page at the same price.]

An analysis of some of the above,

‘C. Russell’ may be Claud Russell junr, who (aged 23) in May 1802 was about to leave Calcutta to take up civil service appointments in the Ceded Territories in northern India (now Uttar Pradesh); or it may be Sir Henry’s 16 year-old son Charles, who had just arrived in Calcutta as a cadet in the Bengal army. The lack of a ‘Mr’ perhaps suggests the second.

‘Mrs Russell’ is likely to have been William Russell’s wife (and cousin) Sophia – they had married the previous year, and the ‘Mr A. Russell’ who paid for the portrait was doubtless her brother-in-law Alexander, our probable sitter.

The ‘two Miss Russells’ were probably Bethia and Leonora (then aged 7 & 4), the two surviving children of William & Sophia Russell. The girls’ mother had died the previous month, and they were shortly to be sent off to be raised by relatives in England - they sailed early in March 1814, and I imagine their father wanted their portraits to remember them by once they had gone. Very sad.

The final evidence that clinches it for me is found in the Will of Alexander Russell “Surgeon in the Honourable East India Company’s Bengal Medical Service”, proved in June 1826. It was initially written at Edinburgh in Jan 1819, when he was on a two-year visit home to Scotland (during which he took, at Marischal College, Aberdeen, the medical degree he had not taken during his medical training at Edinburgh 1776-79). A codicil was added at Calcutta in Feb 1825, immediately before his retirement to London, where he died the following May.

He was clearly a wealthy man, and being without children himself, left generous legacies and annuities to numerous family, godchildren and friends, mainly of £500, £1000 or £2000 (which can be multiplied by anything up to 1,000 for a current equivalent based on average wages). The legatees also included “a half-cast woman by the name of Elizabeth Pyke” who received an annuity of 1200 Rupees a year, to continue after her death for her two daughters until they married, when they would receive 10,000 Rupees each – she was very probably his mistress, and the daughters quite possibly his. Where the Will gets interesting art-historically is that one of the godchildren, James Russell Colvin, was the son of “my friend James Colvin” (who received a gold watch) – and the latter had his portrait painted by Home just before Russell did, paid for in Feb 1796 (and his wife had hers done in 1802).

His executors, too, are very interesting: two were other members of the Colvin family, merchants in London & Calcutta, and business partners of a third executor, Richard Campbell Bazett – and as Miles Barton showed us (16/02/2021), Bazett was also a client of Robert Home’s and an important one, sitting with his wife for several portraits in 1795 & 1796. See https://tinyurl.com/5n6e3frd.

The fourth executor was Alexander’s brother William, who was also the residual legatee – he was left (inter alia) “all my pictures and whatever I may die possessed of …”. Since William was still in Calcutta when Alexander died – and the portrait had probably come back to Britain with the latter in March 1825 – it is not surprising that it ended up with descendants of another brother in the UK.

Alexander, incidentally, would also have known Robert Home from the Asiatic Society (of Calcutta), of which he (as ‘Russel’) was a member, and Home the Secretary.

And that’s it.

George Romney did a very similar portrait- probably dated about 1770-- https://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_390659/George-Romney/Portrait-Of-A-Gentleman-2

This discussion, launched in 2020, concerns a portrait in the Royal College of Physicians currently described as “Portrait of a Man (possibly Alexander Russell, 1715–1768)”, the artist unknown. We are asked: “Could the artist be Robert Home (1752–1834)? Who is the sitter, if not the physician and naturalist Alexander Russell (1715–1768)?”.

THE PORTRAIT. It appears to date to the 1790s from the style of the necktie and the hair, so ruling out Alexander Russell (1715-68).

THE ARTIST. As Miles Barton (16/02/2021) has suggested, Robert Home is the obvious candidate. Miles provided convincing links to very similar portraits by the artist. The suggestion has been supported by Bendor (31/05/2021) and myself (10/11/2021). This leads to Home’s sitter book where there are entries in 1795 and 1796 during his stay in India: “13 December 1795 Mr. Russell. Head” (our portrait is indeed a head in Home’s terminology). And a payment “9 March 1796 Mr. Russell.” See my post (10/11/2021) and Osmund’s (24/06/2024).

THE SITTER. With inputs from Mark (09/06/2021), Marcie (10/11/2021 etc) and especially Osmund, the complexities of the Russell family have been explored and the range of possibilities narrowed. And the likely provenance has been clarified (26/01/2023).

Thanks to Osmund (23/06/2024 02:16, and other posts), we can be confident that the subject of our portrait is Alexander Russell (1760-1826), a surgeon in the East India Company’s service in Bengal (and later to become an MD). Osmund notes how Russell’s friend, James Colvin, mentioned by Russell in his will, had his portrait painted by Home just before Russell did, according to Home's sitter book (23/06/2024 05:07).

CONCLUSION. It is satisfying to be able to identify artist and sitter with confidence. The artist is clearly Robert Home (1752-1834) and the sitter Alexander Russell (1760-1826). I recommend that this discussion be closed with the entries for artist and sitter amended accordingly.