Completed Portraits: British 16th and 17th C 20 comments Is this Sir John Hawkins (b.1532) or someone born c.1522?
Photo credit: The Box, Plymouth
Should we believe the inscription, which says that this is someone aged 74 painted in 1596 (hence born c.1522), or that it is 'Sir John Hawkins', who was not born until 1532 and died in 1595? I guess the former.
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.
19 comments
As you say, the former. The Bodleian portrait shows him greying but still vigorous; the NMM one dated 1581 not grey at all. Both on Art UK.
This is a man older than he got to. Probably a case of Sir Wishful Thinking.
The inscription looks very plausible and correct to the period. Although the left part , the age seems it may have been tampered with. It would be good to take a closer look.The picture also looks like it has been enlarged. There is a definite line above the inscription and around the other tree sides suggesting the portrait was head and shoulders . It appears to have been more than doubled in size.. Possibly to conform with the conventional 50 x 40 size in British portraits.
This painting depicts the same likeness as the portrait said to depict J. Southcote Esquire Aged 74 and dated 1596. Anonymous Sale, Christie's January 21, 1927 (no. 112) as by De Heere 'Portrait of a Nobleman, dated 1578, in brown doublet and white lace ruff, and portrait of 'F. [sic] SOUTHCOTE ESQ., aged 74, in dark dress, with white ruff (two(' sold G. Kelly £11 11); The Society of Apothecaries of London - stolen from their premises. It is illustrated on p. 211 of Sir Roy Strong's English Icon of 1969 and attributed to Strong's
'Unknown Follower of Custodis'. This is a misnomer as there is nothing to suggest that the painter trained under Custodis. Rather this painter operated in the Southwest of England either from Plymouth or Exeter. William Brooke/Browicke is a strong candidate.
Is there any biography for Southcote? If the Apothecaries had the other version after the 1927 sale they presumably had it for some such connection, but you seem to have answered the 'who is it' question originally asked.
Personally, I wouldn't be so confident about the identification. The name 'J. Southcote Esqr.' is surely in a much later hand than the other inscriptions, perhaps over 100 years later. So unfortunately there is no guarantee of accuracy.
This four-year old discussion, “Is this Sir John Hawkins (b.1532) or someone born c.1522?” has really been answered, in particular by Edward Town’s submission (15 May 2018).
On the first question, it is clear that this portrait does not represent Sir John Hawkins. The version, perhaps the original, identified by Town, is inscribed with the later inscription, J. Southcote Esqr, but without supporting evidence we need to be cautious about so labelling our portrait. But we can surely move away from describing it as “Sir John Hawkins” to the designation, “Unknown man”, perhaps with reference in the supporting text to the version with the later inscription as Southcote.
On the second question, Is this someone born in about 1522, the inscription on the version looks genuine enough. So I would support the idea that our portrait does represent someone born in about 1522.
I will try and get Jacob's recommendation officially on the system, tht "it is clear that this portrait does not represent Sir John Hawkins. The version, perhaps the original, identified by Town, is inscribed with the later inscription, J. Southcote Esqr, but without supporting evidence we need to be cautious about so labelling our portrait. But we can surely move away from describing it as “Sir John Hawkins” to the designation, “Unknown man”, perhaps with reference in the supporting text to the version with the later inscription as Southcote.
On the second question, Is this someone born in about 1522, the inscription on the version looks genuine enough. So I would support the idea that our portrait does represent someone born in about 1522."
An article in the ‘Western Morning News’ of October 8, 1946, reported that the Lord Mayor of Plymouth, Isaac Foot, had donated two portraits to Plymouth City Council (Sir Francis Drake, Sir John Hawkins).
This work is PLYMG.ZCH.P8. The portrait of Sir Francis Drake is likely PLYMG.ZCH.P7.
Was the portrait of Sir John Hawkins that is being discussed actually donated by Dr. Frederick William Pearce Jago (21 Dec. 1817 — 1 Feb. 1911) in 1881?
An article in the ‘Western Morning News’ of February 17, 1881, mentions this portrait as does the book ‘Plymouth Armada Heroes: The Hawkins Family’ (1888) by Mary W. S. Hawkins (see page 180).
The two portraits PLYMG.1948.15 and PLYMG.1948.16 were surely the copies discussed in the ‘Western Morning News’ of August 2, 1946.
https://tinyurl.com/ye7v55kn
https://tinyurl.com/379u5utf
Mary Hawkins's book (p.180, published in 1888) makes it clear that the portrait we are discussing here is the one presented by Dr Jago in 1881, who had obtained it by gift from a local Plymouth patient in about 1868. She cites the inscription, recounts discussion of it direct with Dr Jago and suggests that it might more likely be Sir John Hawkins's elder brother William on age grounds. She does not question the assumption. apparently then general, that it was a Hawkins at all, rather than someone else.
What follows, given that the present item is ref PLYMG.ZCH.P8, is that the portrait of Francis Drake, ref PLYMG.ZCH.P7 (which relates compositionally to that by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger dated 1591 in the NMM, [BHC2662]) is the other one presented in 1881 by Dr Jago. How he obtained that is not known.
The current 'unknown acquisition method' for both pictures is therefore inaccurate as regards Plymouth's possession of them and can now be corrected.
Plymouth also has 20th-century copies of both portraits by Lewis Duckett (1892-1977), presented as a pair by Isaac Foot in 1948: the Drake is PLYMG.1948.15 and the so-called 'Hawkins' PLYMG.1948.16.
The NMM has a portrait of John Hawkins painted in 1581, when he was 44, and the Bodleian another stated to be after 1571 but more likely nearer 1590 given it has well-greyed hair. Both are on Art UK and clearly show the present 74-year-old sitter is not him, not least since Hawkins died at 63.
Further speculation on our sitter's identity is pointless unless someone can produce corroborating evidence that he is either the 'J. Southcote Esquire ', so inscribed on the version sold in 1927 (see Edward Town, 15/05/2018 00:29, above) or someone else.
I have no idea if there is any known image of William Hawkins (as suggested by Mary Hawkins) but it may be worth noting she floated the idea under 'further information' in winding the matter up.
A letter written by Dr. Jago about the portrait that he believed depicted Sir John Hawkins is in the ‘Western Morning News’ of December 6, 1880.
The portraits of Sir John Hawkins and Sir Francis Drake are discussed in an article in the ‘Western Daily Mercury’ of January 14, 1881. Dr. Jago did not donate the portrait of Sir Francis Drake in 1881 - it belonged to the Corporation.
Thanks Marcie and apologies for my slip re the Drake: a case of accidental assumption from both saying 'unknown acquisition method' and with contiguous numbers. If it was as early as your 1881 report suggests then very likely based more or less directly on the NMM Gheeraerts.
On reflection, unless anything more is forthcoming about 'J. Southcote' that's the only name worth mentioning as possible identity: the Hawkins link was clearly wishful thinking from the start, albeit it a spur to Dr Jago's rescue of the picture from the verge of complete loss.
Just one thing- the ear-- it is very unusual--- it matches a portrait of Miguel Cervantes- however the Cervantes portrait is not definitely attributed and not sure it is Cervantes. Also has writing on the front.
Just something to think about.
I noticed that many scholars quote the text from an old Plymouth manuscript regarding the date of that portrait of Sir Francis Drake.
https://tinyurl.com/2z32cvee
Thanks Marcie: I've suggested that MS ref is added to 'More information' on the Drake portrait PLYMG.ZCH.P7.
On the pretext that the long-supposed identity as 'Hawkins' makes this a 'maritime subject', I suggest we close the discussion. The idea of Hawkins clearly dates back to the donor, Dr F. W. P. Jago, whose informative letter in the 'Western Morning News' of 6 December 1880 outlines how he found it in a Plymouth 'ragshop' about 1852, and the initial restoration he had carried out.
Edward Town, in the third comment of the present discussion, pointed to the sale at Christie's on 21 January 1927 of another version with the same age/year inscription but additionally inscribed as of 'J. Southcote Esqr'. Even though doubt has been expressed on whether the name is in the same hand as that giving the age and year on the Christie's one, it looks sufficiently close to be as authoritative as we are going to get without another identified image of Southcote being produced. Documentation showing him to be a West Country man of the period would only shorten the odds on it being correct, not prove it so. None has been produced here in the five years since Edward wrote the comment, nor has anyone responded to his suggestion on artist (in disagreement with Roy Strong).
Perhaps this would do as a conclusion:
Title: Unknown man, aged 74 in 1596 (possibly 'J. Southcote')
Artist: unknown artist
More information: This portrait was found in about 1852 in a local 'ragshop' by Dr Jago of Plymouth, who argued that it was a portrait of Sir John Hawkins and gave it to the Corporation in 1881. (Hawkins's dates are 1532 -1595, so it cannot be him given the inscribed age and date). Another version bearing the same age and date inscription and the name 'J. Southcote Esqr', was part of lot 112 at Christie's on 21 January 1927. That one passed to the Society of Apothecaries, London (though later stolen), and is illustrated on p. 211 of Roy Strong, 'The English Icon' (1969) attributed to 'Unknown Follower of Custodis'. Edward Town has suggested, based on there being a a Plymouth version, that a local artist is more likely for both, perhaps William Brooke/Browicke.
Just to note the Southcote or Southcott family were a notable one in Devon and Cornwall. Wiki lists two of them, the landowner and MP John Southcote of Bovey Tracey (1481 – 1556), and his nephew the judge and politician Sir John Southcote (1510/11-1585), whose son was also a John (d. 1634). There may well have been another 'J. Southcote' somewhere in that family who was 74 in 1596, albeit not yet identified.
No one seems to have addressed Simon Gillespie's comment about the picture having been tampered with. The head and top shoulders DO look like a bit of square canvass stuck onto the panels. Perhaps this bit is cut out off the stolen painting- a bit of disguise!! So not a copy,but the same!
This work was restored by Dr. Jago, Louis (see 23/06/2023 05:18).
The attached composite is based on the original section of this work and a section of the portrait ‘J. Southcote Esqr'.
Something the collection might consider in due course is to re-examine scientifically the original head fragment, which Dr Jago 'augmented' to approximately 36 x 26 inches with surrounding oak boards. It's possible that the end of ' ...Southcote Esqr', and the ribbon and part of the cameo, have been overpaited in the Plymouth version. Apart from its eyes being slightly more open than in the other its clearly the same man and pretty clearly the same hand/ workshop, inc. the inscription.