Completed Dress and Textiles, Portraits: British 16th and 17th C, Portraits: British 18th C, Scotland: Artists and Subjects 17 Is this Duncan Forbes of Culloden (1685–1747), Lord President of the Court of Session?

Bishop Duncan Forbes of Culloden
Topic: Subject or sitter

There are several portraits of Duncan Forbes of Culloden on Art UK.
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/view_as/grid/search/works_auto:duncan-forbes-of-culloden

I have not found any reference to him being a bishop and perhaps there is no resemblance to the other portraits of Duncan Forbes, even considering the age difference. If the title of bishop is traditional, maybe it's worth considering that there has been confusion in the past. The sitter could then be, for example, Bishop Robert Forbes (1708–1775).

Completed, Outcome

Thank you for contributing to this discussion, which is now closed. Unfortunately, from July 2024, Art Detective is being paused until further notice due to insufficient funding to continue running the service. All 887 discussions and more than 22,000 individual submissions remain accessible on the Art UK website, but no new comments can be accepted. This discussion may potentially be re-opened in due course.

16 comments

Christopher Foley,

The costume appears to be of the 1720's, which would tend to preclude Bishop Robert Forbes (b.1708) on apparent age grounds. Duncan Forbes was not a Bishop but a judge.His biographer described him thus "above six foot high, very streight and genteel in his body, which much enclined to slenderness; his face was smooth and majestick, his forehead large and graceful, his nose high; his eyes were blue and full of sweetness, and tho' very quick, yet rather grave than sparkling; the pupilla was charmingly intermixed with the white; his cheeks and chin were finely proportioned, his hands and arms were every way delightful.". Does the sitter in the portrait have blue eyes ? - hard to tell from the photograph.

John Forbes,

I have tracked Forbes family portraits for five decades.

This figure may well represent a person of that clan; the man’s nose and lips are indeed similar to documented portraits from the era. Yet his common wig, drab clothing, and lack of appurtenances signifying wealth, rank, or office do not indicate a man of importance. That he might have been a baron, Bishop, or judge remains unlikely.

Perhaps a through cleaning may reveal more information. Until then,
“Very possibly a member of the Forbes family” is fair.

I would discourage, though, further attempts to make a specific identification. The Forbes clan is enormous; tracking them is made doubly difficult by their constant repetiton of only a very few first names.

Trying to sort the dozens of Johns, Williams, and Jameses is mind boggling and leads to nothing but frustration and futility.

Believe me, I have tried!

John Hazard Forbes / Thomasville, Georgia

Jacob Simon,

Three contributions were made to this discussion, “Is this Duncan Forbes of Culloden (1685–1747), Lord President of the Court of Session?”, in the first week of the discussion in June 2019, since when silence, I suspect because the question has been answered: this portrait does not represent Duncan Forbes of Culloden, Lord President of the Court of Session.

And if we take John Forbes’ advice, it will be problematic trying to come up with a convincing identification. Time to close this discussion, I suggest.

Jacinto Regalado,

The entry should specify the venue where the portrait is held, since ANGUSalive is an umbrella term. It is preferable to use British School here rather than unknown artist, which would be implied.

Jacinto Regalado,

The picture may not be quite good enough for William Aikman (1682-1731), but it could be by a follower or someone in his circle. Aikman was initially intended for the law. Compare below:

https://bit.ly/3tzQg4Z

https://bit.ly/33nbE2S

"Style of" William Aikman seems tolerably reasonable.





Marcie Doran,

My first attachment compares this work to the two William Aikman (1682-1731) works in Jacinto’s comment: 'John Lumsden of Blanearn' and 'George Watson (1654–1723)'.

My second composite compares it to a work by John Smibert (1688-1751) at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston.

'Judge Edmund Quincy'
John Smibert
1737
https://tinyurl.com/2p8fhmyr

I'm wondering if the Smibert work could help to date this painting.

Jacob Simon,

Marcie's comparison convincingly demonstrates Aikman's livelier touch. The portrait under discussion is by a lesser hand than Aikman (or Smibert) and will be difficult to identify.

Jacob Simon,

I go back to my post of 17/01/2022. The question has been answered: this portrait does not represent Duncan Forbes of Culloden, Lord President of the Court of Session.

If we heed John Forbes’ advice (26/06/2019), it will be problematic trying to come up with a convincing identification. However if the owners, ANGUSalive are alive enough to explain how the portrait became described as "Bishop Duncan Forbes" we could take another look. Otherwise, time to close this discussion, I suggest.

Marcie Doran,

This is just a guess but could this be the painting ‘Duncan Forbes of Culloden’ that was mentioned in the attached article from 1945? Two items on Art UK were “bequeathed by Miss Edith Urquhart, 1945”. Edith Mary Urquhart (1874–1945) was an artist. Her Scottish father Edward William Urquhart (1839–1916) was a "clerk in holy orders" and her mother was Caroline Mary Urquhart (née Harris) (1848–1928). Perhaps Caroline was the "Mrs. Caroline Urquhart" who gave two portraits by Raeburn to a Scottish museum in 1900.

Jacob Simon,

This discussion, “Is this Duncan Forbes of Culloden (1685-1747), Lord President of the Court of Session?” attracted only three contributions in the first week in June 2019, the final one of which from John Forbes (26/06/2019) highlighted the difficulty of identifying one member of the Forbes family from another. I revived the discussion a few years later (17/01/2022) but unfortunately further pertinent information has not been forthcoming.

THE PORTRAIT. I think that the dating of the 1720s suggested by Christopher Foley (20/06/2019) is appropriate on the grounds of the wig, the cut of the coat, the long necktie and the style of the portrait. The portrait is very discoloured making detailed appreciation difficult.

THE SITTER. The collection, ANGUSalive, calls the portrait “Bishop Duncan Forbes of Culloden” which appears to be incorrect, as explained at the outset of this discussion. The suggestions that it may represent Duncan Forbes of Culloden (1685–1747), Lord President of the Court of Session, or indeed his brother, John Forbes, do not really stand up to scrutiny when one clicks through on the link given at the outset of the discussion. Our man has a rounder face than in the later portraits on ArtUK. And there is nothing in our portrait to indicate that it represents a lawyer. If we heed John Forbes’ advice (26/06/2019), it will be problematic trying to come up with a convincing identification.

THE ARTIST. From my experience of the work of William Aikman and of John Smibert, our portrait is clearly by some other hand with a somewhat harder touch. Scottish school, as suggested by Jacinto (17/01/2022), may be appropriate for now. Cleaning this discoloured portrait might help identify the artist.

THE WAY FORWARD. Further informed contributions to this discussion would of course be welcome, perhaps from the collection or from Michelle Foot, group leader for Scottish subjects. If not, we should move towards closure.

Jacob Simon,

Since my previous post (23/04/2024), further contributions from the collection or the Scottish Group leader have not been forthcoming. In any case not John Campbell. Closure of the discussion is now recommended.

The current description of the sitter as “Bishop Duncan Forbes of Culloden” is not tenable. I recommend amending it to: “Unknown man, formerly called Bishop Duncan Forbes of Culloden”. And adding the dating: 1720s

As to the artist, a modest change is recommended to: “Unknown British artist”