The Collection have commented: ‘The sequence of portraits of the Baynes family of Bower House formed part of the county art collection from County Hall, which the Record Office had passed to it with virtually no information regarding the origins. The only note we can find derives from some photographs of the paintings taken in 1967, which suggests that the subject and possible ascription to Hogarth are down to Christopher Hussey in a wartime article for Country Life. I have attached a scan of this sheet (ERO reference I/Pb 2/10). I have also looked at a photocopy of the original article from 24th March 1944 which states “the saloon chimneypiece… with the charming portrait in it of Lucy Baynes (surely an unattributed Hogarth)”.

The Baynes portraits remain in their disframed condition and there is no writing or ascription on this portrait. The date given in the catalogue is ‘circa 1740’, although there is no particular reason given for this. I suspect it may be biographical based on the possible age of Lucy at the time, although I have not been able to track down a family tree in our collections. Lucy married Francis Lee or Leigh on 5th May 1743 but no age is given in the relevant register of St George’s, Bloomsbury.'

The contributor added: ‘I am attaching a document. I am sure that Martin Hopkinson is right (as he usually is) that Inventory (1737) of the goods of Mr Serjeant Baynes decd at Havering, Essex, made by John Padmore and John Antonie | The National Archives may hold the key to some attributions. https://bit.ly/3L5mjjA I have found a researcher who wishes to do some work on Bower House records and hope I can persuade her to look at the MS as she is based in Bucks. My only interest is in Flitcroft and the other people involved in the commission for Bower House which I hope included Hogarth.’

The Collection commented: ‘That is most useful for us here at Essex Record Office, particularly to have a clear date of Lucy Baynes’s birth and to see the relations between the Lee, Baynes and Sandys families. We hope your researcher finds the item at Aylesbury useful and we would be delighted to know the outcome of that visit regarding a potentially more accurate dating.'

[Then, at a later date, the contributor added:] ‘Baynes' 1737 inventory in Aylesbury (now examined by a researcher) provides no clues as to the artist but simply confirms that the painting was built into the original plasterwork (which was clear from early photos) 'all fixt on the wainscott'. At least the date of the inventory confirms that the painting is before 1740! I am confident of my date attribution of 1729 for this painting due to Lucy's age and the building of Bower House. '

Dear Jill,

We live in 5 Bloomsbury Square, the other 1/2 of Pushin House, which Flitcroft "improved" in 1744 for the Bedfords. If you would like to visit, email us, Peter & Renate Nahum, at: peternahum@leicestergalleries.com

Peter

I'd suggest that this portrtait is the work of Enoch Seeman the younger c.1694–1745 from the pinpoint eyes and the flabby handling of the face.

https://www.artic.edu/artworks/108984/the-sleeping-congregation
I have to say No, it's not a Hogarth, If you study The Sleeping Congregation you will see that the sophisticated level of composition, drafting, drawing and animation is Masterpiece quality. Could it be a student or follower or admirer of his> YES. One can see where they are trying to compare the young lady to ripe fruit. But that's as far as they got.

I should add that Mary Baynes, wife to John Baynes who commissioned the house and presumably their own and his daughter's portraits, was nee Beke and sister in law to Duke of Montagu's steward Marc Antonie. Baynes himself was the duke's man of law.

Likely that orange is simply an elegant ref to the address of the house on what was Orange Tree Hill, but possibly an allusion to father's wealth and her heirship.

It is unusual to find a profile portrait at this time, making this painting of Lucy Baynes from Bower House a rare example. This discussion asks two things. Does this portrait date from 1729. And who painted it.

THE DATE OF THE PORTRAIT. An inventory of 1737 refers to the portrait, as reported by David Saywell (04/02/2022). In the same post, in an attachment by Gill Hedley, the proposed date of 1729 is explained. Bower House was built that year and the portrait fitted into the overmantel woodwork. Lucy was born in 1709 and appears here at the age of about 20. On this basis, a date of about 1729 would be reasonable.

THE ARTIST. The idea of William Hogarth as the artist, made in the 1940s, is not tenable. Two years ago I suggested that this portrait was the work of Enoch Seeman the younger (c.1694–1745) from the pinpoint eyes and the flabby handling of the face (04/02/2022). I have now followed this up. In the substantial file of reproductions at the National Portrait Gallery there are no other profile portraits by this artist. However, there is a signed and dated 1733 portrait of a woman with an orange tree (image failed to attach despite several attempts)). It is not the inclusion of an orange tree as such, found in some English portraits from at least the 1680s, which is significant But rather the form of the orange tree in its round container and the way the woman picks the orange from a tree displaying orange flowers. That, taken with the handling of the facial features, the fall of light on the costume and the division of the background on the right side of both paintings, make me confident about an attribution to Enoch Seeman the younger.

I am minded to recommend shortly that this discussion be closed unless further information can be obtained.

Is there any word on if and when the ability to upload attachments might be restored? I appreciate that Marion has been away for much of the time since the problem became apparent to us nearly a fortnight ago (night of the 4th/5th); but on the 12th David Saywell said that, in her absence, he would flag it "as a bug for our software developers to fix", since when...silence.

It is particularly frustrating as (a) this is a repeat issue, which we were told not that long ago had been sorted out; and (b) we are being asked to try and tie up as many loose ends as possible on here before we are closed down. I have significant contributions to add to many open discussions, but pretty much all of them rely on images I've saved and annotated/combined to support the arguments.

Oh, and while we're at it, is there any way of disabling the deeply-annoying 'Want More Art?' pop-up that keeps appearing on (and largely obscuring) the right-hand side of the screen? Perhaps Art UK's software developers could concentrate on fixing the things we deperately need, instead of inflicting upon us things that we don't?

The problem with uploading attachments will be resolved, and the software developers have it amongst their other Art UK issues list that they are working through - I had that confirmed with the Head of Digital Infrastructure after your message Osmund. Apologies, I have no given date for that, and appreciate it must be extremely frustrating. Just to say that I did flag it as soon as I said I would on the 12th.

Thank you, David.