Completed Portraits: British 18th C 95 Is there a more convincing attribution for 'Sir Ralph Abercromby (?) and Companion'?

How confident are you that this is a portrait of Sir Ralph Abercromby? This man does not resemble the man painted by Hoppner

I thought Edward Mathew Gov. of Grenada then I found it has been suggested previously (Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, vol.31-32, 1953 p.72). I haven't got access to the article, just a google books snippet.

Could we have detail photographs of the map, please?

The map on the wall is based on Fenner's 1784 map of Carriacou. I'm not sure what the Grenada map on the table is yet. Fenner's map had the title in a cartouche, but the artist of this picture has removed it and enlarged the text.

See page 5 of this PDF:

http://www.islandtrees.com/IMAGES/Craigston.pdf

Could this be by an Irish artist?

Andrew Cormack at AHR kindly sent me a copy of the article mentioned above.

See attached. (paragraph 2 & footnote 21)

Hi Tim,

Are you trying to attach a file that is more than 6MB? Do you want to send the file directly to yourpaintings@thepcf.org.uk?

Havving a problem attaching files - fourth time lucky...

Hi Alice,

I had compressed them, just I live in the sticks so my internet is just a little faster than dial-up. Had to wait a few more seconds so the files uploaded properly!

If it is Mathew, and taking the Carriacou map into consideration then the date range can be narrowed to 1784-1789.

I think it's a bit too good for Downman - similar to Edward Penny, though probably too late in date for him.

If anyone has access to the Witt & Heinz, there might be an existing portrait of Mathew we could compare with.

Closer to Zoffany than to Penny

Could it be by Hugh Douglas Hamilton? For him see Fintan Cullen, 'The oil paintings of Hugh Douglas Hamilton', Walpole Society, L, 1984 pp. 165-78 [which I have not seen]

Ruth Kenny, who contributed to the catalogue of the Hugh Douglas Hamilton exhibition of 2008 in Dublin and is now at Tate Britain, is presumably one of the curators there who 'have been puzzling over this small double portrait'.

Is there any evidence that the workj has been cut down? The sudden cutting off of "Abercromby's" right leg looks odd and, come to think of it, am not sure how his left leg would relate to the chair he's sitting on.

The portraitist shows some ambition, but awkwardnesses make me feel that he is not near the centre of metropolitan painting - hence possibly provincial or Irish - but was he very young and died young - and hence the difficulty of finding comparative works by him? Were their portraitists pursuing a career in the West Indies, who might be candidates?

Philip Wickstead worked in Jamaica from 1774 until his death between 1786 and 1790 -- dates which seem to be right for this double-portrait. He was known as a 'pupil of Zoffany', while working previously in Rome -- which also fits the bill. He might be a candidate for consideration, although I do not know if he was good enough. Unfortunately, available illustrations of his work are not plentiful.

This seems more accomplished than the few portraits by Wickstead that have passed through the sale rooms in recent years - and he seems to have had a penchant for long faces

The background is also better developed than those of Wickstead, which normally have a flat theatrical backdrop look to them. Although it must be said that he did favour multiple portraits and the dates and geography are a good match.

Another possible source for information may be the Grenada National Archives at Berwick-upon-Tweed, Berwickshire, which has over 2000 documents related to the period in question. Ninian Home of Paxton House later became Lieutenant Governor of Grenada (1793) and was an influential plantation owner and campaigner for humane treatment of slaves. Could he be a candidate for the civilian in the double portrait? He was a patron of the artist Adam Callandar, best known for his naval and landscape work, who painted four views of the Paxton plantation on Grenada during the same period, but I don't believe ever was known for portraits.

When I first saw this painting I was so excited because of the connections to the map on the wall and the British invasion of Grenada in 1796 to put down the rebellion. The reason for the Carriacou map on the wall possibly has to do with the fact that Abercromby was in Carriacou in June 1796 where he met with Brig-Gen. Oliver Nicolls to plan the capture of most of Grenada from the rebels led by Julien Fedon. The Carriacou map on the wall is the manuscript map that Fenner used to correct his information before publication. There is a badly degraded copy in the Carriacou Museum which I would like to think is the one in this painting; the Granada National Museum also has a copy. The map on the table seems to show the town of St. George's. To the above comment about Ninian Home, he was dead by the time this meeting took place, killed by the rebels Abercromby was planning to destroy.

Very useful info on the map Angus, thanks.
It's a difficult one this. My first thoughts included the likes of the Anglo-Indian painter A W Devis. But he would seem to be in wrong part of the world for the action depicted.

Could the Welshman William Parry be a possible candidate for the artist. See his group portraits of the blind harpist, John Parry, with an assistant [National Museum of Wales], and of Omai, Sir Joseph Banks and Daniel Solander [of which there are at least 3 versions]?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/john-parry-the-blind-harpist-and-an-assistant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/omai-c-c1753c-17761777-sir-joseph-banks-17431820-and-dr-da116906
To me it still seems to be closer to Zoffany

I have asked Miles Wynn Cato, who has written Parry's biography, to have a look.

Miles Wynn Cato says:

Sadly, I don't think this is by William Parry - the composition is more sophisticated and complex than his Omai group and the figures/faces are not reminiscent of any of his other portraits. Parry was not good with hands and these seem very well rendered.

What about Mason Chamberlin? He had a nice line in these conversation pieces.

In the following work are many of the same compositional elements: the room lit from the side by a window; the sitters arranged around a table, the elder man's waistcoat is handled in the same way as is the red drapery in the left foreground (same as the desk in the Tate's picture, I mean); and same tendency to frame the image with a bit of red drapery come to think of it (given the curtain drapery in the Tate's picture serves that purpose). In the man's face, the same pasty white complexion but with contrasting areas of red.

http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_169301/Mason-Chamberlin/Samuel-Smith-and-his-Son-William,-c.1770

The historian Susan Whyman's also got a small b&w portrait by Chamberlain on her homepage, where he does much the same thing.

Chamberlin died in 1787 and was still exhibiting in 1786. Most of his surviving work seems to be somewhat earlier, from the mid 1770s or before, which doesn't help.

RIchard, I think that's an excellent suggestion. Since Mason painted General Allenby, Gov. of St. Lucia (76 x 61cm), and a few of his pictures involve maps/plans of some sort or another.

Like Tim, I think that Richard has probably found the answer to this attributional problem

And what about these for Chamberlin's compositional awkwardness (but charm) - http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_307664/Mason-Chamberlain/Portrait-of-a-Midshipman and http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/captain-john-bentinck-17371775-and-his-son-william-bentin173199?

Chamberlin's death date of 1787 is also consistent with the identification of the sitter as Edward Mathew, Governor of Grenada 1784-9, as is the similar size to General Allenby, Gov. of St. Lucia.

Also see Chamberlin's 1775 portrait of the Earl of Crawford with his sons, which is lot 197 in Christie's sale on 3 December 2014 (day sale of old master & British pictures).

Here is a very low-res image of the Christie's picture, but I think it makes the point.

It should be noted that there is some confusion on BBC Your Paintings over out artist as two or probably three paintings by him can be found under Mason Chamberlain [ who seems to be a landscape painter of a different generation] and one of the later Mason Chamberlain's paintings can be found under our Mason Chamberlin! Can all this be corrected?

In addition there is a mid 18th century portrait of Mrs Le Keux under Mason Chamberlin the younger [died 1826] as attributed . Can this be assigned to the correct artist too?

Richard's attribution to Mason Chamberlin the elder is the best so far. There are 2 Mason Chamberlins: the elder (1722-87), a portrait painter and well known as one of the founder members of the Royal Academy; Mason Chamberlin the younger, was his son (1767-1826), the landscape painter, not at all well known although apparently prolific, who exhibited through the later 1820s.

The date of Chamberlin the elder's birth is variously given as 1727 (PCF, BMP&D, RA) or 1722 (NPG; Celina Fox in the ODNB records this one as his baptismal date and there was a record for that), so this too probably needs correcting on Your Paintings.

Thank you Martin for pointing out the confusion on the site. The corrections will appear on the Your Paintings site by early December.

A slightly better image of the Crawford portrait that's coming up at Christies - oddly the catalogue says it is signed ‘Chamberlain [sic] pinxt/1775’, and that spelling is repeated in the catalogue entry heading (as well as the 1727 birth date). No wonder there's confusion!

This conversation ground to a halt a while ago, but it was quite promising for a while. If the painting is by Mason Chamberlin snr, then clearly this isn't a portrait of Ralph Abercromby from 1795-7. The only other candidate I have seen as sitter is General Edward Mathew, Governor of Grenada (I think) 1782-9, as Tim Williams pointed out.

A couple of questions for Angus Martin, if he happens to see this post:

1. What do you think of the idea that Edward Mathew is the sitter?

2. Fenner's map was published in London in 1784, but what we see on the wall is an earlier proof (or mss version?) that he used to help make corrections to the plate prior to the publication. Is it known when Fenner made the earlier version? I am just wondering if this might help to pin down the date. Is is fair to think that the painting must pre-date the publication, as surely the Governor would have had the published version on his wall had it existed?

And a question for Tim Williams: can you say anything more about the portrait of the governor of St Lucia? Does it survive, when and where was it made? Etc

This was so long ago I can barely remember, but I suppose it must have been this one:

Lot 169 - Sotheby's, London (November 28, 2002)
http://artsalesindex.artinfo.com/asi/lots/800779

Regrettably no image - might have this catalogue though, I will check.

That's great. The 2002 sale is missing from my run of SPB catalogues but surely it will be reproduced. Thank you for checking.

There’s a curious article that was published in ‘The Connoisseur’ in 1918. It discusses the double portrait, it’s accession to the museum’s collection and the doubts surrounding the identity of both the artist and sitters.

“Various names at various times have been tentatively given to the painter of this double portrait; the question if the sitters’ identity, we believe had not been seriously investigated”

Even though it was written over a hundred years ago, It’s interesting to see how the article mirrors many points that have been raised in this thread. It also mentions the history of the West Indies and that Hugh Douglas Hamilton and J.H.Mortimer were considered
“ ...advanced as candidates for the authorship”

Here is a better photo of the painting. If it's Downman it was his best work. It could be Chamberlin the Elder. He was Known for those type of poses. But to be certain, or as certain as one can be. You need a much better photo of the clothing. Chamberlin's clothing always has a life like quality to it. You can feel it between your fingers when you observe the painting. I am getting a little of that from the onsite Tate Photo. But, you would need to do an actual inspection.
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/sir-ralph-abercromby-and-companion-198588/search/actor:downman-john-17501824/page/2

Whaley, every artwork discussed here has a (usually) better image on the main Art UK website, and a link straight to it ('Open on Art UK') at the top right of the page.

Downman did a portrait of a man of similar standing-in a similar position wearing a similar military coat- namely Sir james Adolphus Oughton ,which is in the National gallery Scotland. Does it compare to this picture?
https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/3438/sir-james-adolphus-oughton-1719-1780-commander-chief-scotland

I'm not sure Nigel Llewellyn is still at the Tate, so this discussion might be into the ether.

Thanks Osmund I'm terrible at looking for things on web pages. Perhaps you could drop by the Tate and render a decision for us on the clothing. I wasn't Kidding. If it's by Chamberlin it will reach out and smack you around a bit.

could this be an unusual early William Beechey? Compare his portrait of James Legge Willis holding a map of Bambouk in Clevedon Court. May be if he did paint this he was dissatisfied and never ventured into this area again?

Beechey does not seem to have gone in for this sort of conversational picture, Martin, though that need not mean he never did so. Link to the Beechey portrait of Willis below:

https://bit.ly/3uXNaoL

Perhaps J.T. Seton might be worth considering as a candidate for the painter of this picture?

William Schupbach

William, I assume you're referring to pictures like these:

https://bit.ly/3ajTMpz

https://bit.ly/3e9g5Q9

https://bit.ly/3akoyi2

The long bony face of the man on the right could be compared with Seton's treatment of Sir Eyre Coote [British Library] . If either of the sitters was a Scot, it would strengthen the case for Seton. His portrait of Warren Hastings could also be mentioned see John Jones' 1785 mezzotint after it in the British Library.
Of course Abercromby, if it is him, was a Scot
Do James Abercromby's life of 1861, the ODNB entry or Carol Dival's 2019 book General Sir Ralph Abercromby and the French Revolutionary Wars 1792-1801 throw up names for his companion?
Seton seems to be much more likely than Beechey

To throw another name into the mix, Benjamin Vandergucht.
https://artuk.org/discover/artists/vandergucht-benjamin-17531794
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Vandergucht
https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010063841

Vandergucht seems plausible stylistically, but I expect it would be hard to prove. He last exhibited at the RA in 1787.

This work might be by the American artist Edward Savage (1761-1817). Wikipedia states: “In 1791 he visited London, where he studied for a time under Benjamin West, and then went to Italy. Upon his return to the United States in 1794, he practiced in Philadelphia and New York City, maintaining for several years a picture gallery and art museum on Water Street in New York.” https://tinyurl.com/srk7pbhf

Although this painting of George Washington and his family at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., is enormous, it does resemble the Art UK work (especially the main sitter):
“The Washington Family, 1789-1796”
https://tinyurl.com/6useaxhb

I think the eyes in his portrait of George Washington, which is also at the National Gallery of Art, are very similar to the main sitter’s eyes in the Art UK work. Also, this painting is almost the same size as the Art UK work (76.1 x 63.3 cm vs 76.2 x 63.5 cm).
“George Washington, c. 1796”
https://tinyurl.com/kxc5e6ne

I have attached a composite for ease of comparison.

I do not think this is by Savage, Marcie. His faces, as evident in the picture of Washington and his family, are more generalized or approximate and less convincing. Those in our picture are done by someone better at delineating individual character.

Marcie, the two works are the same size because that is one of, perhaps *the* commonest size for British (and British-influenced) portraits at this period - what was confusingly called a 'three-quarters', which is a reference to the size of the canvas (30 x 25 in., more or less), not to the amount of the sitter's body portrayed. In fact for a single sitter it is usually what we would think of as a half-length, as in the Washington portrait.

An understanding of canvas sizes is important for anyone wishing to get involved in C17th-19th Art Historical research, and I would recommend you read fully and carefully the detailed analysis of the subject here (and in the four linked further pages): https://bit.ly/3gMf1Uq

Thank you for the reference material, Osmund. I thought the eyes in the two works were similar and mentioned the canvas size only as an additional fact, since, on another comment, I was asked to provide more facts in my comments. The first painting that I noted is large and I was also trying to make the point that the artist also paints smaller canvases that are the same size as the work that is the subject of this discussion.

He may be painting on the same standard-sized canvas as our artist, but they are painting on a very different scale. I think your comparison image is of limited use, as in reality the two faces are very different in size, and the brushwork is not directly comparable - see attached for the real proportions. Generally-speaking a different skill-set is required when painting relatively small figures (and their faces), and fitting them into a smaller canvas in a pleasing composition. This is why artists of such works have historically tended to be specialists (though there are exceptions).

To further your hypothesis you would need to find us some other double / group portraits painted by Savage that are on a comparable scale. And I would also want to see evidence that he could paint more informal and relaxed figures like those in our painting - which is a true conversation-piece - rather than the very stiff and formally-posed group in the Washington family. And that is before one even begins to look at the largely self-taught Savage's technique, which even after his brief foray across the Atlantic is mainly pretty crude. Ironically it is his early, often naïve work that holds the most charm for us today - his later attempts at sophistication tend to fall flat, and his adult sitters are dull and lifeless.

should Tilly Kettle be brought into the discussion? See the National Maritime Museum's recent purchase of the group portrait An Admiral in his Cabin Issuing his Orders [of 1768 - so much earlier] . It would have to be a very late Kettle.
for this picture see Art Quarterly, Winter 2022, p. 80

The Kettle was no 75 in 1769 at the Society of Artists of Great Britain

Here is the the Kettle triple portrait recently acquired by NMM/RMG from the Gambier-Parry family (private treaty).

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-1190982

The long catalogue entry (by Katherine Gazzard as relevant curator) is, in effect, the justification for obtaining it.

Regrettably it and other recent acquisitions at Greenwich since PCF /Art UK images went online as 'BBC Your Paintings' back in 2013/4 I think - including the best of the three 'Armada portraits' of Elizabeth I, formerly with the Tyrwhitt-Drake family - have not yet been added to Art UK site.

The reason has so far proved impossible to fathom beyond brush-offs like 'other priorities', especially since NMM/RMG is a signed up member of Art UK: so is the fact that the images that the PCF/Art UK took for the BBC/PCF project of NMM paintings that has no in-house electronic ones ever get added to the RMG website - as was originally intended and in the formal provisions then made.

It's at least worth remembering -should you find an unillustrated reference to an oil painting on the RMG site - that there is almost certainly an image on Art UK.

All very annoying and rediculous all round from a user viewpoint, and nothing to do with the curators of course, to whom its also an embarrassment.

The picture is currently on display at Tate Britain. Attached is an image of the head of one of the figures in higher resolution showing the delicay of the handling. I'll post further next week about a possible identification of the artist.

Jacob, that resembles pastel work.

At the outset of this discussion in 2014 Tim Williams raised the name of Edward Mathew, Gov. of Grenada, as possibly the seated man. He also asked if there were other portraits of Mathew.

The attached plumbago miniature, probably by Thomas Worlidge, was sold at Christie's 2 February 1971 lot 35. It is the only portrait of Mathew in the NPG Heinz Archive. It is perhaps 30 years earlier in date than our portrait. In any case the likeness is not sufficient to take us any further given the age difference and the difference in medium.

A bit of history

This discussion was begun by Nigel Llewellyn, then Head of Research at Tate, “Tate curators have been puzzling over this small double portrait of Ralph Abercromby and a companion with a map, unconvincingly attributed to Downman. Nice to solve this some time soon.” (5 June 2014).

The picture under discussion was given to the National Gallery by Louis Duveen through the Art Fund in 1918 and transferred to Tate in the 1950s. Sir Robert Witt wrote to “Major Blunt”, the future Sir Anthony Blunt, on 6 November 1945 (National Gallery archive, NG 3/3316/4). Of the portrait under discussion, he told Blunt, “I myself saw the picture in Louis Duveen’s possession and begged him to present it to the Fund for the National Gallery. He then agreed with me that the attribution to Downman was quite uncertain and improbable, but he had no better name for it at the time.” These doubts about the attribution to Downman appear in an article published in ‘The Connoisseur’ in 1918, posted by S. Elin Jones (19/02/2020).

The picture is currently on display at Tate optimistically as “By John Downman” and was so exhibited in the recent exhibition that Tate sent to Paris.

I asked to see the Tate curatorial and conservation files for the picture. The very slim curatorial file (60a/03/3A) contained a photograph “Attributed to Downman” and a single printed form of some age completed in pen noting that “On acquisition by the National Gallery dubiously attributed to Downman. Sir Robert Witt in a letter in 1934 suggested Danloux. This type of neatly executed portrait is often associated with Wheatley.” (NB. It is not by Danloux nor Wheatley; I will return to the attribution and the identifications in a subsequent post.) The National Gallery file, which predates the transfer to Tate, is rather fuller.

There was a Danloux exhibition in Edinburgh which I saw - not by him
see also A Goodden , The French emigres in Europe ... London , 1997 , pp. 165-183 and in Apollo,148, 1998 , pp.31-6

I was in touch with Tate. They have changed their artist designation for this painting to "Attributed to John Downman".

Jacob, thank you for the history and details from Tate's curatorial file which you posted last March, and for updating us today on Tate's adjusted artist record. Art UK has been updated. Perhaps there will be renewed interest in the discussion from these comments.

To consider the two men depicted and their relationship. With ideas on the date of the picture and the artist to follow. The Tate website now describes the picture as attrib. John Downman, Sir Ralph Abercromby (?) and Companion, ?c.1795–1800.

1. WHERE AND WHY WAS THE PORTRAIT PAINTED?
The picture is painted on a canvas of standard British size, 30 x 25 ins. Its sophistication suggests that it was painted in London, rather than, say, the West Indies, Ireland or the English provinces. The portrait will likely have been painted on the return of the two men to Britain from the West Indies and appears to memorialise an occasion or a friendship. Is it a celebration of a successful partnership between the military and civil authorities in the West Indies or a picture of a returning commander with his brother or other close associate?

2. WHO ARE THE MEN?
Even at the time of the portrait’s presentation to the nation in 1918, there was doubt about the identities. The soldier’s uniform is that of a Lieutenant-General (see the authoritative article, N.P. Dawnay, ‘The staff uniform of the British army, 1767-1855’, Journal of the Society of Army Research, vol. 31, 1953, p. 72, repr. in Tim’s post 12/06/2014).

The seated man has sometimes been identified as Sir Ralph Abercromby on circumstantial evidence. The later portrait by Hoppner does not really help. The man's companion has sometimes been described as a secretary but secretaries do not sit on the table and are depicted in a secretarial capacity, usually with a writing instrument. So the Tate’s description, a companion, is more acceptable.

Edward Mathew, Govenor of Grenada, has also been suggested for the seated man but the only other portait of him does not help (see my post, 08/02/2023).

It seems to me that the discussion in 1918 and now over the past 10 years demonstrates that there is not enough evidence to identify the two men, firstly because of a lack of documentation and secondly because of a lack of comparable portraits.

3. THE HISTORY OF THE PORTRAIT
I requested to see the Tate curatorial and conservation files for the picture. The conservation file contain photos. The reverse of the later 19th or early 20th century lining canvas is marked in large black painted numerals, “409/1” with the 1 below the 409. There is a partly obscured label of Thomas Agnew & Sons, perhaps early 20th century and predating the gift of the portrait by Duveen to the National Gallery in 1917. The label is pencilled “by Mortimer”. I think it would be difficult to trace the picture in the Agnew archive at the National Gallery and, even if traced, not necessarily productive. But not to be dismissed as a line of research should the collection wish to follow up. Ten items had been removed from the Tate file under the Freedom of Information Act sections 40 (2) and 31. It was not possible to view the compact disc containing x-rays of the picture, apparently because they were in tif format.

THE DATE OF THE PICTURE

Several factors need to be taken into account. THE UNIFORM belongs to the period to 1789, when the design was changed (article by Dawnay, see preceding post), although the soldier could have worn it a year or two later when sitting for his portrait. THE MAP perhaps dates to 1784 although its precise form, whether manuscript or printed, could influence the dating (posts 05/06/2014, 13/06/2014, 04/08/2014, 17/06/2015). THE COSTUME, specifically of the man on the right, could in my experience date to the 1780s or early 1790s. So a dating of circa 1784-1790 seems reasonable.

Tate dates their picture to ?c.1795–1800, perhaps on the basis, to quote their website, that “Abercromby led the attack that suppressed Fédon’s Rebellion, an uprising against British colonial rule in Grenada in 1795–6”. The identification with Abercromby is very doubtful. The uniform in the portrait, that of a Lt-General, dates to the decade before Abercromby achieved this rank. This makes Edward Mathew, Governor of Grenada (preceding post) a more likely candidate.

THE ARTIST

The identity of the artist has proved elusive. The portrait is by a competent hand but probably somewhat outside his normal range or he would have been identified before now. On examining the candidates already mentioned, it seems to me that six are worth further consideration despite the lack of close comparators.

WILLIAM BEECHEY. Compare with “James Legge Willis holding a Map of Bambouk”, c.1798, at Clevedon Court (NT), suggested by Martin, 17/04/2021, link https://bit.ly/3uXNaoL

MASON CHAMBERLIN. Included here since the idea was taken up with enthusiasm in a series of posts from 10/11/2024. Not very likely stylistically. He died in 1787.

TILLY KETTLE. Not very likely. His faces are rather different in appearance. He died in 1786.

JOHN THOMAS SETON. The comparisons posted are different in character to our portrait (18/04/2021). Returned from India in 1785.

BENJAMIN VANDERGUCHT. Just possible. He died in 1794. See the comparison, attached, with the group portrait in the Louvre. But hard to prove as Jacinto says (30/08/2021).

FRANCIS WHEATLEY. Just possible but close comparisons are elusive.

Other names that have been suggested and I think eliminated include John Downman (nothing like), Hugh Douglas Hamilton (his oeuvre well defined and his style harder; in Italy 1779-91, then Dublin), John Hamilton Mortimer (died 1779), William Parry (heavier in touch and less sophisticated in composition, as Miles says, 12/08/2014), Edward Penny (less delicate in handling and largely ceased to exhibit), Edward Savage (nothing comparable; American in London 1791-4), Philip Wickstead (worked in Jamaica until his death, 1786/90; our portrait is more accomplished), Johann Zoffany (little comparable to our work post his return from India in 1789).

POSTSCRIPT: today Neil Jeffares in his blog convincingly identifies John Thomas Seton’s dates as born London 1733, died Kingston-upon-Thames 1815. Worth amending accordingly on Art UK. See https://neiljeffares.wordpress.com

RESEARCHING THE SITTERS

From the evidence presented during this discussion, the seated soldier is quite possibly Edward Mathew.

From the Centre for the Study of the Legacies of British Slavery database at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/search/ :
General Edward Mathew (1728 - 26th Dec 1805). Son of William Mathew the Lt-Governor of St Kitts and Lt-General of the Leeward Islands (d. 1752), and himself Governor of Grenada 1784-1789. Husband of Lady Jane Bertie, daughter of the second Duke of Ancaster. His will refers to his [unnamed] estates and enslaved people on Dominica, which and whom he left to his son Brownlow.

Mathew’s will is in the National Archives does not contain reference to his portrait. Mathew’s extensive official correspondence as Governor is also in the National Archives. However, if our portrait is documented it would be in his unlocated private papers rather than in his official correspondence.

Not straightforward.

RESEARCHING THE ARTIST

One way forward would be by comparison with a painting by a known artist, in particular looking at the artist's handling of paint. To this end in this post and the next I am attaching detailed photos of our portrait.

A detail of the soldier attached here.

A detail of the map attached here. See previous post.

A detail of the cravat of the companion. A detail of his head was posted on 06/02/2023.

John Singleton Copley?

My composite compares the maps, and is based on part of the following work:

https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/admiral-clark-gayton-1712c-1785-173337/

Note the position of the sitters in 'Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Izard (Alice Delancey)' (1775):

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/31228

Martin had suggested Zoffany (14/06/2014 07:05).

Zoffany painted General Edward Mathew's brother Daniel Mathew c. 1763/1764
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-mathew-family-at-felix-hall-kelvedon-essex-216871/

The attachment is based on an extract from a work attributed to Zoffany dated c. 1783:
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/captain-william-hall-142980/

Is not the one advance we so far have from the above (the uniform, Grenada map and likely date 1784-90) - and despite the lack of a parallel image of Matthew at a similar age - that a better title would be 'Lt-General Edward Matthew (?) and Companion' ?

Even though the Zoffany attribution of Captain Ward in the Ashmolean is both only traditional and doubtful, the right forearm of the Captain's coat is much better than the entirely flat rendering of the 'Matthew' sleeve and cuff, which (plus general palette and appearance of the setting) suggests Zoffany himself here is unlikely.

Thanks, Pieter.

While the "companion" wouldn't be the same man, he does look very similar to "Mr. Currie" in this portrait by Downman at the Tate.

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/downman-mr-currie-half-length-in-profile-to-left-t08872

Another attempt …

"Very similar"? I'm surprised: even allowing for the slightly different perspectives, our 'companion' has a notably recessive chin and a positively enormous aquiline nose. Mr Currie has a much prettier profile, and his nose in particular bears no resemblance at all.

Interestingly our main sitter *does* seem to have a very similar nose to his companion, and probably (though it's less clear) an equally recessive chin. This - along with the exceptional informality of the young man's pose in the picture - suggests the possibility of a close blood relationship. See attached comparison of all three faces. Jacob gently threw the idea of a brother into the ring (14/02/2024 13:14); but I think they are a generation apart, and a nephew or even son is more likely. And funnily enough, a 1920 catalogue of the National Gallery collection, shortly after the painting's presentation, suggests it may show father and son (albeit identified as Abercromby and by Downman): http://tinyurl.com/53net25v.

I found that while looking for a map titled ‘PLAN of the Town & Bay of St GEORGE in GRENADA’, for that is the precise wording of the one on the table – see attached version of Jacob’s image, rotated and tweaked. A search on Google Books produced several hits, but sadly they all relate to the painting, not to the title of a known map.

General Mathew’s eldest son, Brownlow Mathew (later Bertie-Mathew - 1760-1826), would have been in his early 20s to early 30s while his father was Governor-in-Chief of Grenada, which seems plausible for the companion’s age. The general was actually appointed to the post in March 1783, and served until the end of 1792 or thereabouts – evidence of that to follow, though it’s already clear he remained in London and/or Hampshire for much of his Governorship, only spending limited periods in Grenada. I have more work to do on both father and son, but must leave it for the moment to write up some final thoughts on Collier’s painting of Dendera, or Marion will kill me...

Ah, my attachments are failing, too. Can we sort that out, Marion?

I successfully added an attachment this morning (now deleted), but please let me know if it persists for anyone else.

I'll try my two again - herewith.

Yes, those new ones are opening fine, thank you...but mysteriously so now are my original ones, though still not Marcie's! Perhaps you or your IT whizz is in the middle of trying to edit things to tidy up the thread...?

Here's my composite again.

No, I still get the same error message when I try and open that, Marcie: "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it..."

Thanks for the info, Osmund.

My guess is that the map on the table was based on this map dated 1762 on the Library of Congress website. Note the capital letters on "PLAN", the "&" after "town" and the period after "GRENADA".

https://www.loc.gov/item/2010593380/

I'm proposing to recommend closure of this discussion tomorrow afternoon. Any further informed contributions?

I had stated earlier (18/02/2024 18:19) the following:

"While the "companion" wouldn't be the same man, he does look very similar to "Mr. Currie" in this portrait by Downman at the Tate."

My point was that the way the men are depicted is similar.

Here, hopefully, is that composite again.

The close interaction between the two men in the Tate picture might be compared with that between the two central figures, one seated and one standing, in this group portrait by Henry Walton (1746-1813), dating from the late 1780s:

https://photoarchive.paul-mellon-centre.ac.uk/objects/486856/paf018600003

Walton certainly looks like a possibility, though I'm not sure how active he was in London and the south by the 1780s.

Re the previous suggestion of Benjamin Vandergucht, as well as the fine double portrait in the Louvre referenced by Jacob (https://tinyurl.com/3c6urh6c) , there's an interesting similarity in the pose of General Mathew to that of the seated figure in this theatrical scene of his at Leicester: https://tinyurl.com/mukymsxh. See also attached comparison.

Whoever the artist, I'm sure it was painted in Britain not the West Indies. The heavy curtains and substantial panelled shutters are more Whitehall than Windward Islands, and there were long periods when Mathew (if it is he) could have been painted in the UK.

The London Gazette rercorded the appointment of Mathew, then in London, as Governor-in-Chief of Grenada on 1 Mar 1783, and of his successor on 6 Dec 1796 (though Mathew’s replacement was being written about as early as Dec 1792, and he may well have left earlier still). Prior to that he had been promoted C-in-C West Indies (a post he retained when advanced to the Governorship) in Aug 1781, shortly after his return to England from N. America. He left for the W. Indies promptly in spring 1783 – he was in Barbados by the beginning of May 1783, and went from there to St Lucia – but did not arrive in Grenada until 1784, when he took possession of the island from the French on 6th Jan. Carriacou was visited in June. However, he had left Grenada again by mid-June 1785, where an acting governor was appointed in his absence, and by early Dec that year he was in England (and had been for some time), when he wrote from Bath requesting “an extension of his leave of absence for a few months longer” due to ill-health.

16 months later he had still not gone back – at the end of April 1787 he was being wined and dined in London, along with the PM and other ministers, by the (absentee) proprietors of the island. Not until October do we find him in Portsmouth awaiting transport to the West Indies, but anxious about how he’d get there if war broke out. He was in Grenada, or on neighbouring islands, from at latest Apr 1788 until at least Sep 1789; but the record is silent thereafter, and it’s not clear when he returned to England for good.

So the two most likely periods for a portrait such as this being painted in England are (possibly) 1781-82, as C-in-C W.I.; or more likely 1785-87, as Governor. And if the map of Carriacou on the wall does indeed date from 1784, then it is clearly the second.

I don’t know why those Tiny links in the first para aren’t working, I tested them both. These are the direct links: https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010063841 and https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/scene-from-the-register-office-by-joseph-reed-81136

This discussion, launched by Tate in 2014, concerns a double portrait that came to the nation in 1918. The painting was described by Tate as unconvincingly attributed to John Downman. In a sense this discussion began as long ago as 1918, as S. Elin Jones posted (19/02/2020), pointing to an article published in ‘The Connoisseur’ in 1918, which discusses our portrait in terms familiar to those who have contributed to the current debate.

THE PORTRAIT AND ITS DATE. The soldier’s uniform is that of a Lieutenant-General (see Dawnay’s authoritative article referenced in my post, 14/02/2024 13:14). This uniform belongs to the period to 1789, when the design was changed (article by Dawnay), although the soldier could have worn it a year or two later when sitting for his portrait. The map perhaps dates to 1784 although its precise form, whether manuscript or printed, could influence the dating (posts 05/06/2014, 13/06/2014, 04/08/2014, 17/06/2015). The costume of the man on the right could date to the 1780s or early 1790s. So a dating of circa 1784-1790 seems reasonable and, as we shall see below, can refined further.

THE SITTERS. Even at the time of the portrait’s presentation to the Nation in 1918, there was doubt about the identities. The identification with Abercromby is untenable. The uniform, that of a Lt-General, dates to the decade before Abercromby achieved this rank. This makes Edward Mathew, Governor of Grenada from March 1783 to about the end of 1792, a more likely candidate. For more detail see posts by Osmund (19/02/2024, 25/06/2024). As Pieter suggests (18/02/2024) a better title for the picture than the current “Sir Ralph Abercromby (?) and Companion” would be “Lt-General Edward Matthew (?) and Companion”.

I have previously suggested (14/02/2024 13:14) that the portrait’s sophistication suggests that it was painted in London. Osmund has now identified (25/06/2024) that Matthew was not in the West Indies for the whole of his governorship and was in London, 1785-87. The portrait may have been painted then or following his final return to Britain, perhaps in 1789. Do we see the portrait as commemorating a successful partnership between the military and civil authorities in the West Indies or as a picture of a returning commander with his brother, son or other close associate? There is more to be said.

THE ARTIST. I have already explored the suggestions made as to the artist (14/02/2024). Out of these, the two most feasible are Benjamin Vandergucht, as suggested by the late Alastair Brown (28/08/2021), and Francis Wheatley. On further consideration I cannot see that this portrait as by Wheatley for lack of good comparisons. Henry Walton has recently been suggested but I am quite clear that our portrait is from another hand. Osmund (25/06/2024) has now posted a thoughtful comparison with a work by Vandergucht.

The current long-standing tentative attribution to John Downman does not stand up to scrutiny as Tate recognises. With some hesitation I recommend that this be changed to Benjamin Vandergucht (1753–1794), attributed to. Comparisons have been posted on 14/02/2024 17:17 and 25/06/2024 20:20. This attribution may open up new avenues of research. If Tate is not happy with this, then Unknown British artist is the fallback recommendation.

CONCLUSION. I recommend that the discussion be closed with the title amended to “Lieutenant-General Edward Matthew (?) and Companion”, the attribution amended to “Benjamin Vandergucht (1753–1794), attributed to” or, if Tate prefers, “Unknown British artist”, and the date of the portrait to circa 1785-1790.

Perhaps Louis Duveen purchased this work at auction in 1911. A researcher might review Christie’s catalogues sometime.