The Christies record for the pair of pictures is here:

https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-circle-of-john-zoffany-ra-1733-1810-portrait-4618822/

De Wilde's Wiki claims "He exhibited small portraits at the Society of Artists (1776–1778) and at the Royal Academy (from 1778)" and this pair (which are 22" x 19" and dated 1784) would match that.

But there's not a lot of non-theatrical de Wilde out there, especially from fairly early on in his career, so comparisons are difficult.

Andrew, it'd be helpful if you'd support your statement, "This is by Samuel de Wilde" with some links to visual comparators. I need convincing!

• Sitter

Mary Grubb (née Morton), of Cheshunt, Hertfordshire was born in c.1708 and died at Horsendon, aged 84, on the 11th February 1792. She was 76 in 1784.

On the 7th June 1728, at St. Michael, Cornhill, London, she married John Grubb, who was born in Horsenden on the 14th January 1700 and died on the 22nd May 1785, one year or so after the painting of this portrait.

• Title

Mrs. Mary Grubb (née Morton) (c.1708 - 1792), of Horsenden House, Buckinghamshire

On the back (according to Christies notes) she was actually aged 77, so if we knew her exact birthdate we would be able to work out the time of year it was painted. It's quite late in the 18th century to be recording sitters ages, but then not many married couples made it to 56 years together. I'm not sure what the inscription in his portrait: "Luco. Sacr. M.F.A Q", but perhaps it's related to their longevity.

I suppose in attributing to de Wilde, as well to way the lines on the face have been drawn that Andrew mentions (though you'd expect a few lines at that age), you could also argue that both the Grubbs are holding rather theatrical poses. Of course there could be other artists who share these characteristics - Zoffany for example - and they are the sort of thing that is affected both by fashion and that an artist will pass on to others being trained by them.

Looking at the Garrick Club Collection (https://garrick.ssl.co.uk/home) which has literally hundreds of theatrical de Wildes, he certainly does produce a lot of small oils in the 1790s, only moving to watercolour later. Though these are nearly all showing the actors in character and at full length against scenery.

The Latin inscription could contain the words Luco (the grove of a deity) and Sacris (sacred), which would imply a sacred grove. The painted words suggest that this is a phrase that would have been well-known to the well-educated, so should not be too difficult for experts in Latin or the classics to reveal.

I wonder if the photograph of the portrait of John Grubb has been slightly cut down by the collection or by Art UK on the right-hand side of the canvas. His hand seems unnaturally chopped and the Christies note presents more letters than can be seen on the Art UK image.

Is the inscription an allusion to Grubb's name? As Kieran says, it could mean something like 'M F A from the sacred grove'. Does it imply that 'grove' and 'Grubb' are linked, as a kind of visual pun (or imagined etymology of the name)?

Following up on Kieran's email of 11 May last year, I have asked the Collection if it is possible to take a picture of as much of the lettering as they can see in the portrait of John Grubb.

As Kieran has already noted, John Grubb and Mary Morton married in London on June 7, 1728. A June 5, 1728, record of their intention to marry shows John’s age as 27 years and Mary’s age as 22 years. The attachments are screen images from Ancestry.

I've been looking at wills on the National Archives website (https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

Neither John Grubb’s will (PROB 11/1130/240) nor Mary Grubb's will (PROB 11/1214/224) include references to paintings, Mary’s will mentions her unmarried sister Hester Morton.

Hester Morton’s will (PROB 11/1233/23) mentions her three sisters and one brother:
- Ann Jeffery, wife of George Jeffery of Throgmorton
- Mary Grubb, wife of John Grubb of Horsenden
- Rebecca/Rebekah Baker [married June 27, 1748, died between February 22, 1769 and June 7, 1772], wife of Edward Baker
- John Morton

The siblings are mentioned in the 1747 court case Milnes v Fisher (C 11/1618/7) https://tinyurl.com/3pnj86cr.

The 1738 court case Wahso v Foxley (C 11/1884/57) includes John Grubb, George Jeffery, and John Morton Senior. https://tinyurl.com/auhse349

My guess is that Mary Morton (later Grubb) was baptized at St. Michael Cornhill, London, on April 30, 1707, and that her parents were John and Sarah Morton (see attachment). Recall that the record of her marriage showed that John Grubb was from St, Michael, Cornhill. An Anne Morton was baptized at that location on October 26, 1705, and her father was named John Morton.

Pages 332 and 333 of 'The History and Antiquities of the County of Buckingham, Volume 2' by George Lipscomb, show the family tree of John Grubb https://tinyurl.com/4k74je7r.

In her will, Mary Grubb asked to be interred in the same vault as her late husband at the parish church of Horsenden. Here is the website for that church http://www.bledlowparish.org.uk/Horsenden.htm. The church is just visible behind John Grubb. Is the tombstone depicted in the painting an actual tombstone?

Perhaps, one day, someone might check the Grubb family archives for mention of these paintings. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/c/F22867

The National Archives website has the "Will of John Morton, Linen Draper of Throgmorton Street, City of London" (PROB 11/743/364) dated February 10, 1737, with codicil of August 24, 1742 – proved at London on December 12, 1745.

John Morton's will does mention his wife Sarah, his daughters Rebecca, Hester and Margaret, and his son John. He quaintly uses the word "son" for his sons-in-law and mentions, for example:
- "my son John Grubb and his wife"
- "my sons John Grubb and George Jeffery"
- a bequest to "my son John Welles ... in full performance of my agreement made with him on his marrying my daughter Margaret his now wife"

He also mentions a daughter Frances Watson and a son Andrew Lillie[?]. I have attached the first two pages of the will.

The National Archives website has the “Will of Sarah Morton, Widow of Peckham, Surrey” dated April 4, 1746 (PROB 11/756/507) – proved at London on September 30, 1747. She mentions her children and their spouses as well as her brothers William and John Farrington. An extract is attached.

Volume four of the 1902 book 'Miscellanea Genealogica Et Heraldica' edited by Joseph Jackson Howard, LL.D. F.S.A., has a section about a diary written by Mary Grubb's father John Morton. "In 1738 John Morton, linen-draper of London, then aged 74, wrote out what he called a "Diary", but what were really his recollections of a long and busy life". See pages 176–178 at this link https://tinyurl.com/vjpd3tuv. I have attached page 177.

I realize that my posts have not identified the artist, however they do provide some background information about the two sitters.

Marcie, identifying the birth family of Mary Grubb for the record is fair enough - but how do all these details of her parents' Wills (written nearly 40 and 50 years before the portraits were painted), and of her siblings and their spouses, help us? I feel you're rather overdoing your "background information", I'm afraid, and in danger of submerging the discussion in so much extraneous information that it becomes hard to follow. You're more likely to find things that may inform matters among John Grubb's heirs and their descendants - in particular those who lived at Horsenden House, where the paintings in all likelihood remained until the house was sold by his gt-nephew (also John Grubb) in the 1840s, prior to his emigration to North America.

Incidentally full details of the sitter John Grubb's Will (which apart from a brief codicil of March 1785 self-evidently could not have included any mention of the paintings, as it was written in Feb 1782) are given in the detailed catalogue descriptions of the Grubb and other connected papers in Buckinghamshire Achives (the same ones mentioned by the NA). See https://bit.ly/3wVCrzz and https://bit.ly/3NH4x7v. Most of the Grubb papers relate to their landholdings and estate matters, not to anything personal/domestic - in fact at first glance I can only see one item among them that might conceivably include mention of paintings, an early 1840s "account of things belonging to Mr. Grubb at Horsenden House": https://bit.ly/3uT0dcT.

There is also a reference under 'related material' to "additional Bucks material not deposited" in a "list prepared by Ipswich and East Sussex [sic - i.e. Suffolk] Record Office, 1958". This material is now held by Suffolk Archives, and is catalogued in some detail here: https://bit.ly/3J1y9sD. Although there are several items that might possibly contain relevant references, the chances that anyone here will have the time or opportunity to do such research in Ipswich (or in Aylesbury) seem remote.

I can't see what you describe as "the church ... just visible behind John Grubb", I'm afraid; and I think it's a bit of a leap to call the the object on which the inscription is carved a tombstone. It may perhaps be a real memorial of some sort, I suppose, but from the little we can see I think it unlikely. My feeling is that the landscapes are imagined, and the same is true of the stone structure and inscription. There seems to be more of the latter (beginning with 'S'?) below the 'Q'. I hope the Collection is able to get us the fuller image belatedly requested, but since it will certainly involve taking it out of the frame I am not too optimistic.

Osmund, in order to firmly establish Mary Grubb’s birth date in 1707 it was necessary to confirm beyond a doubt the names of her parents.

Having the names of the siblings of sitters helps to check family wills. It seems from a nearly illegible note from 1808 on the last page of John Grubb's will that his will, and Mary Grubb’s will, weren't administered properly. Yes, the paintings likely stayed in the house at Horsenden until the 1840s.

The dark area under the hat, near his ear, might be a doorway.
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/john-grubb-17001785-of-horsenden-house-buckinghamshire-26611

I don't see that dark blotch as a church door - the shape is too irregular. I think what we're looking at is a large (birch?) tree trunk, with dark marks on the pale bark (and/or bits of foliage in front of it) - note the sharply-defined edges of the trunk in the upper part of the painting above and alongside the sitter's cap.

The Curator has come back to us on the lettering on the John Grubb portrait (see attached). They have added: 'Please find attached an image of the truncated lettering on the John Grubb portrait in case anyone knows what it means. I’ve never been to Horsenden Church or Manor (in private ownership) so couldn’t say if it relates to any monument. I have found out that John Grubb was associated with the Mercer’s Guild in London and was Master there in 1763 but their archivist could not tell me anymore. I don’t know if Samuel de Wilde had any connection to the Mercers at a later date or whether we can assume that John Grubb retained links with the Mercers into his later life.

An enhanced detail confirms Osmund's point; foliage visible. Regards, David

Thank you, Bucks County, for the rapid and helpful response. It's a great photo as far as it goes...but unfortunately it doesn't go far enough! There is clearly more hidden by the frame, and without seeing *everything* that's there we are somewhat hamstrung.

Even from that image, however, we can see that (a) that the third letter of the third line is not an 'F' (as stated by Christie's) but an 'E', (b) the next letter is unlikely to be an 'A' as it seems to have a vertical first stroke, and (c) the word 'LUCO' on the first line does *not* have the full stop after it Christie's gave, i.e. it is not abbreviated. All of which only stresses the importance of seeing more, I'm afraid.

I am very aware how difficult it is for collections to arrange taking paintings out of their frames, but in this instance I would plead with them to consider doing so if and when they are able. I'd also like to see the area below that currently covered, as in the low-res image it looks to me as if there might possibly be more lettering there. Finally (as if that weren't enough!), if they *are* able to de-frame it, which would involve taking it down anyway, some images of the rear (especially the inscription[s]) might also be helpful.

The attached is taken from the "Visitation of England and Wales" edited by Joseph Jackson Howard and Frederick Arthur Crisp (Privately printed, 1896). In the article entitled "Genealogical Memoranda relating to the Family of Grube", it is mentioned that two portraits, of John Grubb, who died on the 22nd May 1785, and his wife Mary Grubb, who died on the 11th February 1792, were painted "By Daniel". Who might be this painter?

The portraits by Daniel could be the two portraits under discussion here.

An extensive history of the family is given between pages 89 and 102 of the publication:

https://bit.ly/3u4I2Sk

Forgive me:

The article title should be "Genealogical Memoranda relating to the Family of Grubbe"

Thomas Daniell (1749–1840) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Daniell

His works have a similar theatrical look.
https://tinyurl.com/3y2c3ewh

In the RA catalogue for 1777 he was “Thomas Daniel” of “No. 42, Queen Ann Street East, Cavendish Square”, exhibiting three works including (85) "Portrait of a gentleman, three-quarters".

From what source is the date of 1784 taken as the year in which this portrait was painted?

According to the Christie's catalogue entry (https://bit.ly/3NQU0Xk) the two portraits are inscribed on the reverse of their canvasses, 'Mrs Mary Grubb / AE 77 / 1784' & 'John Grubb Esqur./ AE 84 / 1784'. Christie's (but not the Collection) add various further full-stops to their transcription, but I don't entirely trust them.

What is very interesting is that C. say the canvasses are unlined. This suggests that the inscriptions are quite likely contemporary, and there is even a chance that they were written by the artist himself. That's why I am keen to see images of them: comparisons may be possible with the writing style of candidates for the elusive 'Daniel'. Your book discovery is immensely helpful, but that name is perplexing. Thomas Daniel is not out of the question, but on the face of it pretty unlikely - I'll go into my reasoning about this later if I have time.

If these paintings were executed in 1784 that would have been in the year before Thomas Daniell took himself off to India and beyond for several years, so he could have painted them. However, they are very much out of the stylistic spectrum of his known work, which, in my own very humble assessment, is not at all theatrical but is very meticulous and architecturally respectful. That said, I await with great anticipation Osmund's valued opinion.

The local painter John Hamilton Mortimer knew Mr. Grubb, but he passed away in 1779. https://tinyurl.com/2p8dsunv. See, for example, his ‘Mrs. Lushington’ (1774). https://tinyurl.com/3tsyz2sj

The Curator has very usefully added: 'Further to the discussions on the John and Mary Grubb portraits I have taken the John Grubb portrait out of its frame to see if there is any further lettering on the inscription. There is, but the paint has been very damaged by the frame so it is not at all clear. Photograph attached. The paintings are both in store at the moment. I have also taken photographs of the back of both paintings with the inscriptions as to names of sitters and date.

The frame looks as if it has been cut down or made from another frame and the canvas of the John Grubb portrait is painted right up to the cut edge which only just covers the stretcher. I wonder if the portraits could have been cut down at some point?

Other material of possible background interest includes the Bucks Garden Trust survey of Horsenden Manor grounds https://bit.ly/3ufb15K . Sadly, I couldn’t find any reference to a monument with the inscription. I’ve also included a pdf of the tomb monument to John Grubb in the church.'

Apologies, the PDF as well.

Judging from David's second edge-on image as posted above, the last three letters could possibly be Q H A, which stand for "qui hanc aram" or, as translated "who created this alter".

The line above could also be "memoriam"

The overall message could be something like:

This Godly Grove
Sacred
to the memory of he/she
who created this alter

That makes sense, Kieran. When looking at David’s original lettering detail image from 04/04/2022 16:40, it is just possible to see the original guideline images below the letters. Below the Q there does seem to be an H.

The H that I am referring to is on the canvas edge, in line and not below the Q.

Yes, but look at David’s original lettering detail image from 04/04/2022 16:40. You can see the faint images of letters below the dark (final) letters on all of the lines of text. Look, for example, at the faint lines under the dark M. Under the dark Q is a faint Q slightly to the left and a faint H slightly to the right. The edge photo confirms that there was a dark H beside the dark Q.

Indeed there are. Well spotted.

Heavens! Huge thanks to the Curator and team for such an exceptionally helpful (and fast) response, and for the excellent (if frustrating) images.

There's a lot to digest there, but they are clearly right that John Grubb's canvas has been reduced on the RH side (and probably elsewhere), as first suggested by Kieran last May. This creates the distinct possibility that the pair were originally of the standard British 30 x 25 inch size (a 'three-quarters' canvas). They are currently 22 x 19 inches, which if done evenly would require a four inches (10.2 cm) reduction at each side, and three (7.6 cm) at top and bottom - not out of the question, and given the amount of painted canvas visible wrapped round the edge and hanging at the back, certainly more likely than an only slightly reduced 24 x 20 in. A 30 x 25 would also have been a far better composition that included most or all of John Grubb's arm and hand, and provided plenty of space for a wider escutcheon showing the whole inscription. I think that Kieran's suggested full wording may be along the right sort of lines, but on grammatical and/or visual-logical grounds the details cannot be quite right. More of that later, though the pedagogue in me needs to correct the spelling of 'altar' immediately!

Marcie, like Kieran I was about to question your reading, but I now realize you mean underpainted letters, not ones below them in a spacial sense. Although I'd previously thought there might be something else written further down the canvas, the new images do not support that.

Osmund, please always feel free to alter all my incorrectly spelled altars. These mistakes creep in when I am tired and am not consecrating properly.

Is there any chance that the collection's Curator could take the canvas of Mary Grubb out of its frame, to see if it also shows signs of having been cut down by some amount? If there are such signs, it would be interesting to see if the left hand side of the canvas has been folded over the left edge, as the right side was in that of John Grubb's portrait. Could it be that the two paintings were once part of a single work, and that damage, , with the loss of some central painted element, somehow necessitated their being divided prior to 1896? It is a fanciful notion, but perhaps it is worth checking the edges of both canvases to establish its possibility.

These paintings of John and Mary Grubb were also in a Christie’s auction on April 7, 1998 (lot 18) https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-878081. The text (attached) mentions inscriptions "on the relining canvases".

The Christie’s auction of August 12, 1993, included a portrait of John Grubbe, manner of Gainsborough, as lot 72 https://www.christies.com/en/auction/british-and-continental-pictures-15630/. It was likely the portrait of John Grubb (d. 1812) that was the third item in the listing provided by Kieran. And, it was likely the portrait of John Grubbe by Gainsborough that was in the RA Old Masters exhibition of 1907 (no. 81) https://tinyurl.com/2ednkvz9.

Hoping to find a handwriting match, I prepared the attached composite based on the portrait of John Grubb and a portrait by Romney with similar leaves that was in the Sotheby’s auction of September 23, 2020 (lot 138). https://tinyurl.com/yfrjuut8. Some characters are indeed similar, but I’m not sure if there is an overall match.

The stencil numbers on the back of John Grubb (and presumably on the back of Mary, too) indicate that they had passed through Christie's at least twice before (possibly three times - I'm not sure if Christie's were still using them in Nov 2005). Provided the artwork had been handled by them over 50 years before, the very helpful Christie's Archives used to provide researchers with full details of what the coded stencil represented - sale, vendor, buyer, etc - but that was largely suspended during Covid. There has since been an announcement which rather implies they may now have ceased that very generous service altogether and permanently, but I haven't confirmed that. See https://bit.ly/3r8V8vW

The mention of a (re)lined canvases in the 1998 catalogue is wrong - the new images we have clearly show that canvas of John Grubb's portrait at least has *not* been lined.

Re the inscription on the Sotheby's Romney, I don't think C18th British artists were in the habit of writing details of the sitter on the front of their portraits (though they sometimes did on the back): the identifying inscriptions that one sees were invariably added later. This is self-evidently so in the case of the Romney, as the sitter's year of death is mentioned - eight years after the portrait was painted! In any case, our portraits look nothing like the work of Romney, except in the loose and rather cursory painting of the background trees and foliage.

Zoffany's 'The Sayer Family of Richmond', lot 63 in last week's Christie’s auction, reminds me of the two works we are discussing. https://tinyurl.com/yeyr7mv9. The date is not shown but it seems to be about 1781 based on information about James Sayer in the Lot Essay.

There are many similarities with our two works, including poses, mood, tree trunk and leaves. It seems to me that the faces are built up in the same way. The building behind James Sayer is somewhat like the monument that John Grubb is pointing to. I have attached two composites based on extracts of the Zoffany work.

Perhaps the current attribution should be retained and dates added for the sitters.

I don't find those comparisons very helpful, I'm afraid, as they mislead us as to the true comparative sizes of the faces in the different paintings. The actual size of your detail from 'The Sayer family' relative to John Grubb's portrait is as shown in the attached image. Unsurprisingly the loose, less detailed brushwork of James Sayer's face (and that of his stepmother) bears no resemblance whatever to the highly-finished work in those of the Grubbs - which is not to say that they must be by different artists, merely that (if so) in the Sayer composition he was working on a far smaller scale as far as the portrait element is concerned.

I don't find the the trees and foliage similar at all. Look at the leaves and bark of the RH tree in 'Sayer' - they are far more detailed than the (to quote myself) "loose and rather cursory" treatment of those in the Grubb portraits. And I'm baffled by the idea that the building behind Jas Sayer is even "somewhat like" the Grubb inscribed (?)memorial - in what way?

Incidentally, the link given at the top of the discussion intro for John Grubb's companion portrait no longer works. Try this instead: https://bit.ly/3HJwlG1

Art UK has a work by the artist Daniel Dodd (active 1752-1792):
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/samuel-sketchley-and-family-171568

Christie's had the following work in an auction in 1998:
https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-1379413

Could he be the artist "Daniel" that Kieran discovered (04/04/2022 17:46)?

My composite is based on the Christie's work.

I've attached some biographical information for Daniel Dodd.