WILLIAM TRUMBULL AND ART COLLECTING IN JACOBEAN ENGLAND

DAVID HOWARTH

THIS article is concerned with some of the papers of William Trumbull the Elder in the British Library, which relate to the visual arts in Jacobean England. As was suggested by Sonia Anderson and Leonard Forster in a recent issue of this journal,^ the Trumbull archive is remarkably rich for the cultural historian, and many scattered references in it reveal the catholicity of those collectors in England with whom Trumbull dealt from Brussels. The acquisition of Italian art by the early Stuarts is a well-rehearsed story,^ but Trumbull's correspondents provide the earliest evidence we have to suggest that Jacobeans were drawn not only to contemporary Dutch portraits by Miereveld and Honthorst, but to early Renaissance German artists; even, indeed, to the great painters of the vanished Burgundian court which had melted away a century before Trumbull came to live among its monuments. At the very end of Trumbull's years in Brussels, a certain Daniel Skynner vs^rote to him from Antwerp about pictures. Perhaps the most intriguing reference in the two letters we shall consider is to what Skynner identifies as a portrait of Charles the Bold, ruler of Burgundy. This he believed to be by none other than Roger Van der Weyden. The relevant part of the first letter reads:

[Postscript] I haue sent heerew[i]th a noate of such Italian peeces as I haue att . And soe farr as I can learne the like will nott bee found heere. I haue given one order to Harken out for some as also for a good one of Charles Ie Hardy. I pray yf you can helpe me, I may vent some of my peeces at Lond[on]...

The Italian peeces w[hi]ch are att London. I Great peece w[i]th a fayer list of makinge as yt was sould to me, an excelent Peece the storye. Adam and Eua. I P[ee]c[e] of Bassan original, the storye the Angel appeeringe to the sheppherds I Great P[ee]c[e]. S^ Jerominus of Jacobus Palma. I Great P[ee]c[e]. of Raphael Urbino. w[hi]ch is defaced. I Great P[ee]c[e]. of Caualier Balione of Lot and his 2 daughters, for w[hi]ch the Marquise Hamelton offered Mr fletcher 40 Peeces. w[hi]ch I wishe hee had taken I P[ee]c[e] of Caualier Bassan. Lucretia. 140 I Great P[ee]c[e]. of an excelent Master, the storye of Neobe. w[i]th some other more good peeces.^ Skynner writing a week later, and at much greater length, refers to the iconography of'Charles le Hardy', or 'Carolus Audax\ as he now describes him: I haue beene harkeninge out bye divers about the picktures of Carolus Audax. I Cannott fynd nor learne of Anye made bye ould Cleaue. butt I haue fownd where one is an originall, himself haueinge sett att the makinge of yt, w[i]th his wiffe a daughter of Engeland; both in a Case, like unto an alter peece. to shut, are both from head to foote. butt nott aboue half a yard or thereaboute' longe. butt made bye an excelent master, one Roger Vander Weyden. the w[hi]ch made the 2 great peeces upon the towne house at Brussels. I requested one yesterdaye to goe to the p[ar]tye w[hi]ch hath them, and in talke of other matters, to take occassion to speake about them, butt hee brought me word they weere nott to sell. I haue another frend w[hi]ch knowes the partye wel. who[m] I will Imploye. about them, and yf hee bee resolued to sell them. I will lett you know the p[ri]ce, or yf I can learne out anye other, of a good master,^

It is possible that the picture was not by Van der Weyden: certain that if it was by that master, then the sitter could not have been Charles the Bold, at least not with his English Duchess. Charles had married Mary of York as his third wife in 1468, and Roger had died in 1464. Seen in a certain light, none of this matters. What makes these letters interesting in the history of taste is that they represent the earliest expansive references in English documents to a liking for the early Netherlandish masters. Identification of pictures cited in early inventories is an imprecise business and none of the pieces referred to in Skynner's lists can be identified for certain with paintings still to be seen today. It is possible that the Bassano of The Angel appearing to the Shepherds is the picture now in The National Gallery, Prague. Its provenance suggests it had belonged to Archduke Leopold Wilhelm and the Archduke had bought extensively at the Commonwealth sales, quite possibly from the collections of men who had been Skynner's clients. However, there are a number of versions of this theme by the Bassano clan. There is no record of a Lucretia by the Bassani. The St Jerome by Palma Vecchio was probably an independent 'portrait' extrapolated from the Madonna and Child with St Jerome and St Helen, which Palma had painted for Rovigo in 1512. Just such a picture, and evidently a copy of the Rovigo St Jerome, is now in the Pinacoteca Reale in Turin. Presumably the Adam and Eve associated with was a version or copy of the autograph picture in the Prado now known as The Fall of Man and then in the Spanish Habsburg collections, where, according to current scholarship, it was copied by Rubens during his embassy to Spain in 1628. Perhaps, however, Rubens's copy was after Skynner's version which evidently lay to hand in Antwerp three years earlier. The painting which sheds most light on early Stuart taste is the Baglione. Cavaliere Giovanni Baglione, the author of Le Vite de' pittori, scultori ed architetti and a distinguished follower of Caravaggio, was enjoying a flourishing studio practice at the time. It has not been possible to identify the picture, but his work was certainly popular with English collectors. Charles I would own at least two works, a St John the Baptist wreathing a Lamb and a Virgin and Child, both of which were presented in the first instance to Henrietta Maria by Cardinal Francesco Barberini. The Virgin and Child is recorded as hanging in the Queen's bedchamber at her death and was therefore a favourite painting. The inclusion of what we may take to have been an ambitious Old Testament narrative scene by a living Italian is further evidence of a marked taste for contemporary art in England in the early seventeenth century.^ The diary of Georg Rodolph Weckherlin, father-in-law of Trumbull's son, now also amongst the Trumbull Papers, provides allusive and provocative references, not only to the comings and goings of living artists, but like the letters of Daniel Skynner, to the work of the dead. On 2 March 1636/7 Weckherhn tells us that he waited upon His Majesty at St James's >hen my Lord Chamberlane presented his Ma*^ with a booke of Holbens drawings'.^ This cannot refer to the celebrated book of Windsor portraits.^ According to the German artist Joachim Sandrart, who came to England with the more famous Dutch painter Gerrit van Honthorst in 1628, there were 'complete books of his [Holbein's] sketches' in the great London houses: several with Arundel, and at least one at that stage in Charles Fs collection. This was shown to Sandrart by and contained designs for dishes, daggers, salt-cellars and other decorative pieces. It may be, therefore, that in presenting the King with another Holbein *book' in 1637, Philip, 4th Earl of Pembroke, the principal sitter in the Pembroke Family at Wilton, was making amends for what had been a tactical error committed several years earlier. Probably in 1627, Pembroke had received from Charles I the book of portrait drawings by Holbein, now in the Royal Library, giving the King in return the St George and the Dragon by Raphael (National Gallery, Washington), which, legend has it, Baldassare Castiglione had presented to Henry VII in 1506 on behalf of Guidobaldo da Montefeltro in gratitude for the Garter which Henry had bestowed on the Italian princeling in 1504. Unwisely perhaps, Pembroke had immediately handed the 'great booke'-the Windsor portrait drawings - straight to Arundel whose passion for Holbein was something of a joke in an otherwise deeply serious and competitive pursuit. The King, however, may not have been amused, and so now ten years later, Pembroke may have been doing what he could to put matters straight. Whatever the nature of this particular Holbein book, happily we can be more precise about another work of art referred to in a letter to be found amongst Trumbull's miscellaneous correspondence. This makes specific mention of a painting by Rubens, so complementing a celebrated collection of other documents in the Public Record Office, which concern the same picture.^ As agent to the court of the Archdukes at Brussels, 1609-25, an important aspect of Trumbull's work was connected with the pursuit of such diverse curiosities we maybe tempted to imagine his house, often something of a fine art repository, looked like one of those wunderkammers, so popular as a subject amongst Flemish painters. As Sonia Anderson made clear, in the main Trumbull was a man for books, not pictures. Before, however, turning to his role as purveyor of luxuries to others, it may be of interest to catch a glimpse of his own more modest purchases. Shortly after Trumbull took up station in Brussels, Abraham Williams, the secretary 142 of Sir Ralph Winwood, the English ambassador in The Hague, wrote about various things which Trumbull wanted, presumably for his own household in Brussels. Williams's letter of 5 March i6ri provides a colourful, if slight, indication of what interested Trumbull himself: Concerning the booke, w'^" must bee Mercator, (for he is the best) I have written to Mr Slade to send me one from Amsterdam as soone as may be w^*^ by the next returne of this Post you shall Godwilling receave: it will cost in gui[ld]ers, (for so I will send it yow) 6^' flemmishe, and being well bound 7", but to have the mappes set out in colours, will cost 11 or 12^^ I have allso written to a marchant in Amsterdam, for two byrdes of Paradice, of the best that can be gotten: you desyered to receave them by this bearer, but it is impossible to receave them so soone from thence: here are some in this towne, and one that is extraordinary fayre, w'^^ will not be sould under 6^^ sterl: but at Amsterdam I hope they wilbe found better cheaper.^

Winwood's successor. Sir Dudley Carleton, came to depend heavily on Trumbull's goodwill as he continued the purchase of works of art on an even more ambitious scale than had been his practice in Venice, his previous posting. Carleton well knew how indebted he was to Trumbull's good offices, and so he reciprocated favours on those rare occasions when Trumbull wanted something which The Hague could provide. In the spring of 1622 Trumbull made a rare purchase of a picture; one suspects because he admired the sitter, rather than the quality of workmanship. It was a portrait of Elizabeth of Bohemia by Michiel van Miereveld, as Carleton tells us:

The picture you desire in y'' former letter I have charge to provide for you: and you shall have it of our famous Michaels [Miereveld's] hand; but in regard the Lady drawes neere her time you must have patience till after her deliverie. meane time she hath a peece of longing to know how the letter which hath so much labour in the deliverie is accepted, and what answeare it will

Presumably Trumbull received this portrait after Elizabeth had given birth to her daughter, the Princess Palatine, Louisa HoUandina, along with likenesses of the Princes. These last were prints since, in another letter, Carleton tells Trumbull they would be sent 'when they are finished in colours'.^^ Trumbull's interest in pictures was probably conventional enough, confined to likenesses of those whom he admired, or with whom he had professional dealings. But even had he wanted to be more ambitious, that was never possible: he simply did not have the wealth to fill his residence with splendid objects like his colleagues in diplomacy. Sir or Carleton himself. When the tyranny of dispatches and official correspondence allowed, Trumbull must have spent significant amounts of time obhging others in searching out pictures, wanted or ordered by influential clients at home. During his years in Brussels, the city was pre-eminent for , while Antwerp was celebrated for its painters and as the art market of Europe. The pressures which hunting out pictures for clients in England could induce are clear enough from the importunate demands made on Trumbull by Sir George Chaworth who 143 was eager to obtain a portrait of the Archduchess Isabella. His impatience stemmed from the fact that James I was going on progress in the locality of Chaworth's country house at Bewdley and he wanted to have it on show to be able to impress his royal visitor. Accordingly he wrote to Trumbull on 3 June 1622, indicating in his letter that there was just a month to go before he had to have it: Good S'", I beseech you ernestly that you will soUicitt For and send me so soone as you can the picture her Altez dyd promis me. for when y^ K goeth p[ro]gress to Bewdley (w'^'' ys in July) then I am for my countrie house - whither I desyre to carye it w*^ me. ergo I doe ernestly praye you send it me by y^ next occasion. And let honest Mr Manewring know howe I doe remeber him in little. Fro' ,. r , yo true frend G Chaworth^^ The most challenging work Trumbull was required to undertake in this connection was having to deal with Rubens. Our unpubhshed letter, which adds to the corpus of material concerning Rubens's relations with English patrons, was sent to Trumbull by Sir Dudley Carleton, from The Hague. It touches upon one of Rubens's hunting pieces, a genre for which the artist was already famous, and which had been of central concern to him for several years. When Carleton wrote this letter, in the autumn of 1620, it is arguable that he was the single most important collector of Rubens. Such an enviable distinction had come about as a consequence of an exchange between himself and Rubens which had taken place in 1618. Carleton had given his own celebrated collection of antiquities, bought from the merchant Daniel Nys in Venice when Carleton had been Enghsh ambassador there, In return for nine paintings by Rubens. Thereby Carleton had acquired paintings of the highest quality, paintings, indeed, which Rubens had refused to sell because they had hung in his own house. Carleton's letter to Trumbull refers, in its main part, to a Lion Hunt: a replica of a picture, the original of which had been painted by Rubens for the Duke of Bavaria, probably circa 1615. The Carleton version cannot now be identified with any certainty: there are a number of replicas, and it was the most popular secular theme Rubens was to undertake in his long and uniquely productive career. As we shall see, Trumbull acted as agent for the painting on behalf of Carleton, who never intended to keep it. Carleton went to some trouble to conceal the identity of the person for whom it was intended. He allowed Rubens to believe that the painting was for his own private collection, thinking to secure a better deal on the basis of the old friendship which existed between them as a result of the 1618 exchange. The Lion Hunt was a pawn in a complicated game. By 1620 Carleton had spent twenty-two years as a diplomat living mostly abroad, and he was keen to return to England and the mainstream of political life. By this juncture, Charles I, as Prince of Wales, had begun to collect pictures and Carleton to co-operate in supplying him, sometimes directly, sometimes through a third party. Although Carleton loved pictures, he had an ulterior motive in taking an interest in the Royal Collection; he hoped 144 that it would enhance his chances of being recalled. When The Lion Hunt mentioned in the letter below was eventually ready, Carleton forwarded it to Henry, Lord Danvers, for presentation by Danvers to the Prince of Wales. The Prince was keen to have a good Rubens in his collection. He had ^ Judith and Holofernes which he had believed to be a Rubens, but which the artist would shortly disown as an example of what he clearly regarded as embarrassing juvenilia. Therefore a real need was felt in royal circles in England for a first class painting by the master or, at the very least, one attested to have been painted by good pupils whose work had been carefully supervised by Rubens himself. Thus, much hung upon The Lion Hunt for which Carleton was negotiating through Trumbull. In order to understand the meaning of the letter, it is necessary to fill out some of its details by noting allusions to the painting to be found in other documents. Henry, Lord Danvers, for whom The Lion Hunt was intended initially, had himself suddenly taken to collecting. He had spent his early manhood fighting in Ireland and then, as a mercenary, in the Low Countries. He had been captured in Flanders in 1615 when Trumbull had reported him as 'among the prisoners detained at Brussels and treated with much severity'; but not, it would appear, to the extent that he was denied the opportunity of admiring the paintings of Rubens at first hand. Danvers was back in England a year later, where he split a consignment of pictures sent by the merchant Daniel Nys from Venice with the celebrated collector, the Earl of Arundel. Perhaps because of the impact the paintings of Rubens had made on Danvers in Flanders, Danvers then decided to try and persuade Rubens to take one of the pictures which he had acquired from Venice in return for one by Rubens himself. This Danvers intended to present to the Prince of Wales. Accordingly, in 1619, Danvers sent Rubens his Creation of the Animals by Jacopo Bassano, writing to Carleton from London on 7 August asking for an equivalent to Rubens's Daniel in the Lions' Den, then in Carleton's collection, currently in the National Gallery of Art, Washington. Now the picture of the Creation is gone to Ruben, geve me leave to accept against soum such of his workes, as are made to be sett at great distance for our roumes ar littell in this cold cuntrye of England... even such an on as y"" Lo: Daniell w**^ thoes bewtifuU lions in the den ... ^^ At this juncture it was agreed that Rubens should take the Bassano and a cash payment in return for 'refitting' the Caccia di Leoni., as Carleton describes it in his letter to Trumbull.

In confidence that this long interruption of o*^ correspondence hence doth breed no strangenes where affection is so well grounded, I recommend unto yo" w*'^ woonted freedome - a private business w^^ is the refitting a certaine picture Rubens hath made for my Lord Da[n]vers at my broakage, by giving him a picture of old Bassans (w*^^ he hath in his hande) by way of exchange: but because Bassans piece is too olde, and thereby much decayed, he will expect from me some advantage in money, w*^^ I will fournish him to his contentment, but I will desire yo" to bring him to as much moderation as yo" may in his demande, because the money is not to comande out 145 of a Lords purse; but out of my owne, w'^'^ is commonly the recompense men have who doe great persons affaires. The picture when it is finished (as Rubens doth advertise me it is neere the point) I desyer may be sente directly to London, to one Mr Lock, who doth my affaires and dwelleth in the Great Almery at Westminster: who shall have order to dispose thereof: and whatsoever yo" agree with Rubens for his satisfaction I will sende him hence. It is a Caccia di Leoni just of the bignes of Bassans Creation w''" Rubens hath in his hande: at least so it must be by agreement. yo"" have seene that Creation in the curious Dutch marchante Daniel Nys his house in Venice wheare it cost me 400 ducats: but it is nowe so decayed that Mr Gage seeing it at my request did not valeewe it above 100 florins. Yo"" will deale for me the beste yo" may so commend me such service as I am capable of in these parts: who am as I will ever remayne, yo"" most affection* frend and servant Hagh this 12 of Octobr 1620 D. Carleton.^^

Unfortunately dealing with Rubens was not as simple as Danvers assumed. The Bassano was in such bad condition that Rubens thought it worth no more than 15 florins. Secondly, The Lion Hunt, which Rubens had singled out as part of what he, for his part, had assumed would be a straightforward exchange, was itself in poor condition; so poor, indeed, that George Gage, an Englishman whose judgement Rubens greatly respected, felt it not good enough for the gallery of the Prince of Wales. Gage was not only a good judge of pictures but a good negotiator, as befitted a Jesuit in the seventeenth century. Doubtless this was why, a few years later, Charles would send him to the Pope to broker the delicate business of the Spanish match. ^^ Before then, however. Gage had helped to establish his credentials for that more serious mission through his adroit handling of Rubens in what would turn out to be this unhappy business of The Lion Hunt. In his own letters, written in connection with this painting, Gage makes no allusion to how badly Rubens was himself behaving. Yet it was obvious. If anyone knew a good picture when he saw it, it was Rubens; and still more so when the painting had been produced in his workshop! Here he was, however, trying to dispose of a wreck, presumably because he must have assumed that patrons in England could simply be dismissed as serious connoisseurs. We are used to Rubens the magnanimous correspondent of princes but, through this episode, we see him in a different light. We catch an unexpected glimpse of a surprising deviousness, of a less noble side to his character. By the end of November it was reported to Carleton that Rubens had finished the painting. But when it arrived in England, it was rejected. On 26 January 1621, Rubens wrote a defensive letter to Trumbull which, incidentally, throws invaluable light on his working methods: But as to gainsaying what I have said, to our Judges, to wit that the Picture is not worth as much, that is not my way of acting. For if the picture had been painted entirely by my own hand, it would be well worth twice as much. It has not been gone over lightly by me, but touched and retouched everywhere alike by my own hand.^* 146 Still this letter failed to clear things up. Danvers wrote to Carleton from St James's Palace on 27 May 1621: But now for Ruben; in every paynters opinion he hath sent hether a peece scarse touched by his own hand, and the postures so forced, as the Prince will not admitt the picture into his galerye. I could wishe, thearfore that the famus man would doe soum on thinge to register or redeem his reputation in this howse ... I will be well content.... theas Lions shall be safely sent him back for tamer beastes better

Whatever the demands of Danvers, there is no evidence that another Lion Hunt, with more of Rubens's own efforts, followed this letter. Rather, Rubens chose to 'redeem his reputation' in an altogether more personal way. I have argued on the basis of another unpublished letter among the Trumbull Papers that it was Danvers who took the initiative in persuading Rubens to send his own Self-Portrait to the Prince of Wales by way of atonement. ^^ It was a handsome gesture for it opened the road to the Banqueting House ceiling, and to that close personal friendship between King and painter which would develop when Rubens spent six months in London in 1628-9 ^s representative of Philip IV of Spain.

We turn now from easel paintings to tapestries. Further Trumbull correspondence forms the nucleus of the second part of this article. These papers, combined with material from elsewhere, constitute the most important corpus of unpublished documents on the early history of the Works, established in 1619 by Sir (fig. i), secretary to Charles when Prince of Wales.^^ Tapestries were the most striking aspect of the interiors of English Renaissance palaces. Henry VIII had nearly sixty residences of varied size and splendour, and over 2,000 tapestries with which to decorate them. Magnificence in Tudor England was created not with frescoes and panel paintings, but through stained glass, coats of arms in their * proper colours', and, most conspicuously, tapestries from the workshops of Flanders and France. So it remained. Charles I had a famous collection of paintings but 1,600 tapestries. High regard for tapestry, that most sumptuous of the decorative arts, was an important continuity between the Tudors and Stuarts. William Sheldon was the first to set up a tapestry-making business in England. He established looms in 1561: first at Barcheston in Warwickshire, and then later at Bordesley in Worcestershire. Verdures and fiowered borders were of real quality; figurative work revealed how reach exceeded grasp at the Sheldon looms. The venture lasted well into the seventeenth century, though it is arguable whether the market was ever more than a local. Midlands one. With the establishment of Mortlake, on the Thames outside London, a very different enterprise came into being. Certainly there were initial difficulties, particularly in the years 1623-5 when capital outlay so far exceeded income that there was a real threat of bankruptcy. Thereafter matters improved, due, above all, to the constant interest which Charles I took in the well-being of the factory. Because of this, lean times gave way to years of plenty and profit. The decade between the accession of Charles in 1625 and the 147 Fig. I. Tapestry portrait of Sir Francis Crane death of Crane in 1636 seem to have been a period of sustained growth, when hangings of the highest quality were manufactured: hangings for which an export market may have become established. Mortlake could not have succeeded without the backing of the King but the momentum of growth was very much the achievement of Sir Francis Crane, the first Director of the Works. Crane, who became Chancellor of the Order of the Garter in 1627, well understood how much tapestries could contribute to a sense of occasion. After the arrival of Van Dyck in London in 1632, Crane worked with the artist on a project to weave a series of tapestries to illustrate the history and ceremonies of the Order, which were intended for the walls of the Banqueting House but do not seem to have progressed beyond a sketch or sketches by the painter. In the early years of the Mortlake works. Crane depended heavily on the co-operation of William Trumbull at Brussels and his colleagues in the diplomatic service in Paris. Brussels and Paris provided the skilled workmen who had to be persuaded to emigrate and set up business in London. Crane managed this, with the result that Mortlake became the most successful aspect of royal patronage of the arts in Renaissance Britain. The Mortlake works were set up by James I in emulation of Henri IV of France - Henri of Navarre - that former hero of European Protestantism, who it was intended would be immortalized by Rubens in the Palais de Luxembourg. Henri had created a successful manufactory of tapestries in Paris in 1607. Perhaps connected with the idea of having an English royal tapestry manufactory, I would suggest, was an attempt by James to set up a silkworm industry in England during the winter of 1607. This was located on the site of what is now Buckingham Palace.^° Unfortunately, the worms shivered in the English climate, curled up, and died. Further out of London and with tapestries, it proved altogether different. The Privy Council instructed a committee of financiers and merchants to proceed after telling them that the King: hath been pleased of late to cast his princely cogitation upon that excellent art of making tapestry, and finding that our neighbouring countries... have attained already to so great a perfection therein, [The King] is not without hopes that the same be established also in this kingdom... we have sent you a copy of an edict made some years since by the late French king, when this art was by himself established in France, from which you may take some light... ^^

That was an inspired initiative since it resulted in tapestries the quality of which soon came to surpass anything that could be produced at the time even in Brussels, while there was no comparison between the excellence of the Mortlake product and the very modest quality of what was woven at the factory Henri IV had established in France. While the source of inspiration for Mortlake is clear enough, what combination of events caused a start to be made there in 1619, rather than during the lifetime of Henry, Prince of Wales, who died in 1612? Prince Henry was passionate about art; he was passionate about France; and he was passionate about the great Henri of Navarre. Assuredly inspiration had been there. Perhaps it was the Prince who had, in fact, been behind the idea of that silkworm garden, but then death took him and his worms. The passing of this 'Young grave Maecenas of the noble Arts' may possibly have delayed matters, but what eventually set the project in motion.^ Two things: a growing feeling that London should be a capital like Paris or Florence, and a sense that London needed to become more sophisticated. This meant having decent portraitists and the trappings 149 of gracious living: brick houses with stone dressings, and the manufacture of drinking glasses, mirrors, cabinets and tapestries. In response to such demands, the Dutch portraitist Daniel Mytens was working in London by 1618, the same year in which James established a Commission for New Buildings in London. There were, too, the ambitions and frustrations of Jacobean collectors. By 1619 English collectors, increasingly sophisticated and increasingly competitive, as Rubens was then learning to his cost, had been buying art in ever larger quantities in the Low Countries. English mercenaries had started the trend when fighting for the Dutch provinces against Spain: Sir Edward Conway, Governor of The Brill, and Sir Edward Cecil liked to buy Dutch fireplaces, and they were the first Englishmen to negotiate for portraits with Miereveld. In addition, English and Scots mercenaries spent part of their pay on expensive 'suites of hangings'. But English buyers were frequently frustrated at auctions of European collections disrupted and dispersed, first by civil war in the Netherlands, and then by that universal conflagration. The Thirty Years War, which broke out in 1618. James I's chief minister, the Duke of Buckingham, experienced a humiliating failure at a sale in Holland in 1620. Buckingham had used Sir Dudley Carleton, not only to deal with Miereveld, then painting Buckingham's portrait, but also to acquire a set of great hangings at Delft. The painting went well enough; though it took longer than it should have done, it did eventually appear. It was quite another story with the hangings. Carleton had to explain to Buckingham in a letter of 20 November 1620: I did lett y"" L^ understand by my wife that the remainder of y*^ L^^ hangings were bought up by great sale - with all the rest in Speerings hands for the k: of Swede against his marriage: but I will bespeake new, yf at her returne (w^^ now I expect dayly) I heare nothing from y"" L'' to the contrarie. Y"^ L^^ picture I will likewise send as soon as the apparel and copies are finished.^^ Buckingham's experience may help to explain how James, almost certainly .prompted by Prince Charles and Buckingham himself, set up a manufactory in London. Tapestry was the backcloth to statecraft, and it was unsatisfactory for Englishmen to be outbid by continental rivals. Mortlake, in its beginnings, appeared to have powerful and effective friends: James I, Prince Charles and Buckingham. When Charles and Buckingham were in Spain in 1623, Charles ordered the Privy Council to purchase the Raphael tapestry cartoons for future use at Mortlake,'^^ whilst Buckingham took a closer interest in the tapestry works than anyone. Two letters from Crane to Buckingham reveal the perilous state of the Mortlake enterprise in its early years, but also Crane's capacity to react vigorously in the face of difficulties. On 12 April 1623 Crane wrote to Buckingham thanking him for his intercession with the King and adding: 'The Kinge tells me he will dispatche the busynes before his going from Whitehall; if he do so, the Tapistries will then be out of danger, and the poore Estate I have left wilbe safe. '^^ Some weeks later, in a second letter informing Buckingham of the difficulties of a mining venture in which Crane had a stake, he added: ' I am now gone to Mortlake to meete the Persian Ambassador to see whether

150 we may not establish some trade of our commodity into those parts. By this you see that I was destined to adventures... '.^^ The Persian ambassador was that celebrated early Stuart eccentric. Sir Robert Shirley. Shirley worked for the Shah of Persia, and the meeting to which Crane refers took place shortly after Sir Robert and his Caucasian wife had returned to London from the Middle East. On their way home, they had called on the Pope and then, dressed in shimmering silks and turbans, had had themselves painted by Van Dyck, who was also in Rome. Shortly afterwards Shirley went on to London to drum up more trade for Persia. It is quite possible, therefore, that his meeting with Crane at Mortlake bore fruit. What is certain is that Crane managed to establish a trade with India. Scattered through the papers of the East India Company are references to sets of tapestries which Crane was able to force the Company to carry. ^^ Crane achieved this through bending the ear of the Duke of Buckingham who, as Lord High Admiral, was not someone the Company could afford to alienate. Nevertheless, the East India Company resented Crane for the strings he could pull: it made selHng their own far coarser tapestries much more complicated. As it turned out, however, the whole Indian business was something of a disaster for Crane, no less than for the Company, a point illustrated by the cautionary tale of John Willoughby and the Raja of Bindi. In November 1630 the Raja agreed to buy four suits of Mortlake tapestries for 18,450 rupees. Whereupon the naive Willoughby let him have them on trust. When years had passed and not a rupee was to be seen, the Company charged the hapless Willoughby personally, making the laconic entry in their minutes: 'and so it stands to this tyme, farr beyond his abihty ever to satisfy'. After further years of waiting, the Company eventually managed to extricate the tapestries. They were returned to London and finally acquired by Charles I as stock when the Crown made itself responsible for the Mortlake works.^^ Inevitably Crane sometimes miscalculated, but he had qualities needed in a good business man: a temperament to take risks, confidence, bold salesmanship, unusual energy, and a certain ruthlessness, all helping to account for a spectacular growth in the market for his tapestries. Many lost courage when confronted with the dazzling, arrogant and peremptory Buckingham, but Crane was able to play his principal patron to advantage. He was, of course, helped by others, and by none more so than Trumbull when Brussels was the world centre both for the making and for the buying of tapestries. Trumbull's correspondence contains a number of letters from Crane which indicate how closely they worked together in the first years of Mortlake. The earliest letter of interest is dated 20 October 1620. Mortlake was then hardly a year old, but Crane acknowledges how much the country will owe to Trumbull if it is a success. He discusses the idea of setting up a factory in Ireland where more modestly priced work could be produced, asking whether Trumbull himself might think it worth taking a stake in the Irish side of the business: s^ I have payed yo*" servant the three pounds twelve shillings yo" disbursed for me for the Tapissier, And do very kindly thanke yo" that you will admitt of the trouble yo" receave by my l[ett]res. my thankes must not be yo"" recompence, but the publicke shall owe yo" a great part of that w*^'' is due to this busynes. w'^*' for so much as is undertaken here, I make no question but to see w in a little while so setled, as wee will envye no place whatsoever for y^ makinge of the best and richest Tapistries. But for y^ meaner sorte, w"*' I thought of for Ireland, I knowe not what to saye; for notw'*" standing my offer; that at the same rates at w*"*" other men tooke them, wee would besides sett up this manufacture, yet such were the Marquisses [Buckingham's] engagem^' for his freendes, that there was no roome for me nor I am afraid for yo". If yo" be provided for by the care of either of the Secretaries, it wilbe a good footinge to begin a fortune there, w*"^ yo" may more easily do there in a great proporcon, then here in a litle. And I knowe yo"' minde is to large to thinke that nothing but what is to be mett w'*' here, will not serve yo"* turne. I am almost in as much haste as yo" were. And therefore I praye take in a word this assurance from me, that I wilbe ever, Yor most assured freend at comandem\ F. Crane 20 8ber [October] 1620^8 Trumbull almost certainly failed to notice the fly cast by Crane: there is no evidence that he even thought of becoming involved with projectors in Ireland. Fifteen years later though, Ireland was once again being thought of as a possible venue for a tapestry works, to be set up from Mortlake and Low Country recruits. The initiative ultimately stemmed from the Earl of Strafford, Lord Deputy General of Ireland 1633-41. Strafford had a pre-Keynesian insight: depression could be alleviated if people were set to work; employment kick-started by public funding. The chance for a little industrial piracy came with the disruption caused at Mortlake by the death of Crane in the summer of 1636. But the actual spur to action seems to have been the acquisition from Brussels of a fine set of tapestries by Strafford in 1636, probably that summer when Strafford had been in London for an extended period. Neither number nor subjects are specified and we can only conjecture that they were for display in Dublin Castle since Strafford's great country house, Jigginstown, which he was building at Naas in Co. Wicklow, close to Dublin, was not then ready for furnishing. Strafford had not been impressed by first sight of his tapestries but had then changed his mind and become most enthusiastic, as he informed Don John de Nicolaldi, the Spanish ambassador in London, who had helped him with the purchase: My very good Lord, Since I came hither I have looked over again the Hangings your Lordship was pleased to procure me from Brussels, and find them much better than at first Sight I took them to have been; they are very well worth my Money; and very humbly too I thank your Lordship for your Care, and earnestly desire, if there be anything on this Side, or in any other Place, whereby I may serve you, that you will, according to the great Interest you have in me, very freely and in Assurance command, your Lordship's most faithful humble Servant, Wentworth. Dublin Castle, this last of December, 1636^® 152 Strafford delegated William Raylton and Lord Henry Percy to forward the business. Raylton was Strafford's solicitor and one of his most trusted advisers. Lord Henry Percy had the rather more controversial distinctions of being the brother of Lady Carlisle with whom, it was rumoured, Strafford had had an affair and, later, of being the ring- leader in a plot to rescue Strafford from the Tower, weeks before his execution. Together Raylton and Percy made an approach to Jan Benoot, one of the more experienced tapestry workers at Mortlake. Amongst the Strafford papers is a letter from Benoot. In it he seems to be laying down the terms for coming over to Ireland to set up a tapestry works there. His letter is dated 8 April 1637 and it is addressed to Percy. Benoot provides a fascinating contrast, in terms of prices, with what Mortlake itself was able to charge English clients, when it was reconstituted under close supervision from the Crown, following the death of Crane. The letter runs as follows: May it please yo*^ Hono'^ to vnderstand the Cause of mee John Benoote a straunger and Tapistry worckman late w^^ S"" Frauncis Crane at Mortlake. That whereas I haveinge had some Conference lately w*^ M*^ Raylton yo"^ Hono^^ servant about the tenderinge my best service vnto yo"" Hono"^ in makinge the like worcke for yo"" Hono'' and in bringinge over worckmen to that purpose out of the Lowe Countryes into Ireland wherein I shalbee very willinge and Carefuil in givinge yo"" Hono"" any Content I may by my best & trewe service that possible I Can. And whereas M'' Raylton hath Certefyed mee that yo"" Hono"" Requireth to vnderstand my demaundes & proposicions as Concerninge the Chardge for the vndertakinge thereof: I haue made bolde to Certefy yo*" Hono*^ of the severall p[ar]ticulers thereof as Followeth Firste I demaunde that there may be vi Loomes to worcke in for w*^^ vi Loomes the Chardge wilbee aboute xxx". Allso for the stuffe at Firste to sett the said vi Loomes to worcke on beinge silke & wosted of all Colo""^ besides gold & silver the Chardge whereof will Come to aboute 350^'. Further there must bee xiiii worckmen besides myselfe to imploy & furnishe the said Loomes in worcke for the chardge whereof in bringinge them & myselfe thither I demaund 150''. Allso I demaunde a worckhowse w^^ a dwellinge howse for myselfe all Rent Free wth ii Roomes for a dyinge howse & to bee all Free from all taxes Chardges & imposicions as wee haue bin vsually hearetofore vnder S*^ Frauncis Crane & in other places Further I demaunde to haue all the Patternes to bee deliuered vnto vs at yo"" Hono"*^ Chardge, and myselfe to bee at all the Chardge for dyinge the Colo""^ and for dyinge vessells and I demaunde to haue our pay every moneth w'^'' will Come to w'" stuffe & worcke aboute 75^' the moneth vppon w*^*^ former Condicions I the said John Benoote will vndertake to deliver vnto yo"" Hono'' at iii" vi' the Elle such worcke as yo' Hono*" boughte last of S' Frauncis Crane & of the like fynenes & goodnes: And yf it please yo'^ Hono*^ to have any Courser made there shalbee an abatem* made accordinge to yo"" Hono""^ good likinge & Content as Reasonable as I can possib[l]e agree w^" the worckmen. All w*^^ if yo"" Hono'" please I shalbee at any tyme willinge and Ready to p[er]forme to my vtmost power whensoever I may vnderstand of yo*" Honors determinacion & further Resolucion herein. And so prayinge for yo*^ Hono''^ prayinge for yo*" Hono''^ [sic] prosperity health & happines I humbly take my leave & Rest. 153 Mortlake the At yo*" Hono" service ever viii'^*' of Aprill to bee commaunded 1637 Jan benoot^^ The project almost certainly came to nothing. This we discover from the testimony of William de Maeght, a sanctimonious colleague of Benoot's at Mortlake. De Maeght wrote to an acquaintance to betray the dissolute habits of his fellow weavers or, as he put it, 'sins committed among us'. In the course of his denunciation, he revealed that 'Jan Benoot has not been at Communion these four years'. No one seemed to mind very much though because he remained undisturbed, and presumably unrepentant, even during the rule of the Saints: he is still to be found living in one of the chambers reserved for weavers at Mortlake when the Parliamentary Commissioners of the King's properties submitted their survey in September 1651. But though the Benoots may have been Godless, they were not slothful. Wiellim Benoot became the proprietor of the Lambeth tapestry works which offered genuine competition to Mortlake after the Restoration. It is not clear why nothing further was made of Raylton's proposal, particularly when Benoot's letter indicates that serious negotiation had been underway. It may be that either the terms were unsatisfactory and workmen could not be persuaded to go over to Ireland, or that the project was simply lost in the turmoil which was to overwhelm Strafford, and indeed Ireland, shortly afterwards. We return now to Crane, and to his dealings with Trumbull in the early 1620s. In November 1622 Crane is busy trying to acquire from Brussels, with Trumbull's help, what he describes as 'patternes', old cartoons for tapestries which could be copied at Mortlake. On 19 February 1622 Crane had written to Trumbull and had mentioned his brother-in-law, Sir Peter Le Maire, a prominent silk merchant, whose portrait was to be taken in bronze by Hubert Le Sueur, sculptor to Charles I. Crane tells Trumbull that Le Maire, having 'a desire to see the place where yo"" are...w^^ my brothers owne curiositie, he will endevor the satisfaction of myn^, in the enquirie after Patternes, if any may be found there good cheape, and done by good M'^^... '.^^ Le Maire must have thought he had found something of real interest because the following September Crane wrote to inform Trumbull that he is sending over a certain Carell de Puttar, 'a Tapissier of myne to spend 30' on y^ Patternes ...'.^^ Unfortunately, as he told Trumbull, whatDe Puttar bought was not a success:

I have payed the money yo" layed out for me and my wife, to yo*" servant Mr WoUey whome I was glad to meet w*^, because I heard not of yo"" Bills of Exchange. My wife thankes - M"^ Trumbull, and so shee doth yo'\ for yo"" favor towardes her in her marchandize; shee will prove to have the best pennyworthe, and yet my thankes is no lesse due to yo", then hers: for if my returne be not as it should be I may thanke my selfe: Those Patternes w^'^ my Tapissier bought for me, are such as makes me see that yo" are growing into some skill in o"" Arte, for yo"" l[ett]res witnessed the distrust yo" had of them: And indeed they are thinges both imperfect (as yo" observed them) and so farre from any excellency that I have 4 Suites better then those lyinge by me, that wee thinke to meane to be employed.

154 It is true that I was desirous of a Suit from thence, but I tolde him what Suit it was: It was a Suite called fructus belli of Julio Romano in y^ handes of one [Nicolas or Francis] R[e]ymbouts But this suite it should seeme would not be sold. And therefore - rather then he woulde loose his labor, he bought any he could gett. This use I have yet made of it, to knowe y' a man though skilfuU in Tapistrie, may yet be unskilfull in payntinge. But I must not give yo" over for all this. But intreate yo", to see how that broken imperfect peece yo" Sawe of Raphaell d'Urbins in the handes of Gubels. I have hearde before how fine a peece it hath bin. And therefore if the ruines may be had at any easy rate, proporconable to the litle use may be made of it, I shall be beholding to yo" and see the money repayed. There are likewise certaine draughts in white and blacke w''^ you sawe at y^"" howse with M'" Chancellor, w*"^ are in the handes of one Peter de Maec[g]ht au Roy de france, dans la Rue de Limburg, or else in the handes of Leroys Cervaise neere the pis manikin. These peeces are so much comended to me, that I will thanke yo", if yo" will send me word, at what Lowe price they may be drawne to. Anthony Mayney tells me he offered 20^' for them. So w**^ myne and my wifes reiterated thankes to yo" and good M""^ Trumbull, I rest ever yo'' most affectionate to serve yo" Fr Crane The last of 9^' 1622'' This is the most important of Crane's letters to Trumbull, and what are we to make of it? There are two references which can perhaps be amplified. The first concerns Giulio Romano's designs for a famous set of tapestries known as Fructus Belli, or The Fruits of War, Giulio Romano was Raphael's worthy successor as a tapestry designer, while his set of eight pieces depicting The Fruits of War was second only in distinction to his twenty-two piece set depicting the Story ofScipio. From Crane's letter to Trumbull, it would appear that Crane's 'Tapissier' was unable to obtain The Fruits of War in that autumn of 1622. We must next consider Crane's reference to a * broken imperfect peece ... of Raphaell'. It is tempting to believe that this refers to none other than one of the famous cartoons for the Acts of the Apostles, designed by Raphael for the Sistine Chapel, and woven in Brussels before December 1521. This was not the case, as will become clear. First, though, we have to summarize the history of the cartoons as it can be reconstructed during the century since they had been under the looms in Brussels. Four months after the letter from Crane to Trumbull with which we are concerned. Crane would write to Prince Charles about an order given by the Prince 'to send to Genua for certayne drawings of Raphaell of Urbin, which were desseignes for tapistries made for Pope Leo Xth, and for which there is 300 L to be payed, besides their charge of bringng home'.^'* It has been suggested in the standard work on the cartoons that it may well have been Rubens who recommended this purchase, a tradition current early in the eighteenth century.^^ By whatever means, Charles was able to acquire for Mortlake seven of the ten original cartoons. The three not included in the consignment from Genoa were The Conversion of Saul, The Stoning of Stephen, and Paul in Prison. Of these, the Conversion had been acquired by Cardinal Domenico Grimani very shortly after it had been used

155 in Brussels, and kept by him in one of the Grimani palaces in Venice. There it would appear to have remained until the end of the sixteenth century since its influence on Venetian painting can be detected right through the cinquecento.^^ Until now nothing has been known about what happened to it thereafter, nor, indeed, anything at all about the fate of the second major cartoon. The Stoning of Stephen. The existence of further documents connected with Crane in the Medici archives makes it almost certain that both The Stoning and The Conversion had, however, come to belong to Cosimo II of Tuscany by 1627. There are two documents in Florence which shed light on the mystery. The first consists of a letter from Amerigo Salvetti, the Florentine resident in London, requesting that the cartoons of The Conversion of Saul and The Stoning of Stephen, then believed by Crane to be in the Grand Ducal collections, be copied for use at Mortlake. Salvetti encloses a memorandum from Crane which reiterates the request. The two documents read in translation as follows:

His Majesty has been informed by, I believe, the Earl of Dorset that there are two cartoons for silk hangings or tapestries, by the hand of Raphael of Urbino, in the possession of the Grand Duke, which his Majesty lacks to complement many others which he had from Genoa some time ago. They are: The Conversion ofSt Paul and the story of The Stoning ofSt Stephen. Three days ago Sir Francis Crane, Chancellor of the Order of the Garter and Superintendent-General of the silk works, asked me if I would write to Florence to find out whether the said cartoons were indeed in the hands of His Highness and, what is more, he added that His Majesty would regard it as a great courtesy if it were possible to obtain copies by the hand of some excellent painter. I replied to Sir Francis that I was not in a position to inform His Majesty whether the two cartoons were at the disposal of the Grand Duke my master but that, commanded by His Majesty to write, I have been punctihous about this request and done everything possible on the assumption that the cartoons are indeed in Florence; so that His Majesty rests well pleased and well served in his desire, whatever the response I receive from Florence in due course. I appeal to Your Excellency to oblige me by joining me in this request of His Majesty to Their Serene Highnesses and, what is more, let me add to this plea the point that these things are central to the genius and delight of the King; these are matters which weigh greatly with him. Their Highnesses could not do anything more pleasing than this. Nevertheless, in all respects, I refer myself to Their judgement as to how Your Serenity will command me to reply. I send you a copy of the memorial relating to this request which has been given me by Sir Francis in person, so that you can be fully informed, and I kiss the hands of Your Excellency, From London, 13 April 1627 Amerigo Salvetti.^'

The copy of Crane's memorandum, written in the same hand, is attached and runs:

Some time ago His Majesty acquired certain cartoons by Raphael da Urbino which had been made by him as designs for tapestries or silk hangings. Amongst those there are two which he lacks. These are: the Conversion of St Paul, and the other, the Stoning of St Stephen. His Majesty has been informed that the Grand Duke of Tuscany has these to hand. That being the case, it would be a courtesy which His Majesty would greatly appreciate, if some excellent Florentine painter could be employed to draw the two cartoons mentioned above. His Majesty 156 has asked Signor Amerigo Salvetti to write to Florence to establish the truth and also to give the necessary orders for the said copies. For Signor Amerigo Salvetti Francis Crane. ^®

So it is tempting to suggest by a process of deduction, that what Crane may have been referring to in his letter to Trumbull of 30 November 1622 as 'that broken imperfect peece... of Raphaell d'Urbins' was none other than the tenth cartoon, namely, St Paul in Prison. This cannot be the case, for the cartoon of St Paul in Prison was almost certainly discarded shortly after it had been used by the weavers circa 1520,^^ It was an anomaly, a filler designed by Raphael for an awkward space in the Sistine Chapel. Whereas the other nine tapestries consisted of regular illusionistic fields, comparable in dimensions to magnificent Renaissance pictures like Mantegna's Triumphs of Caesar, St Paul in Prison had more in common with the splendidly rich borders attached to the main picture fields of the tapestries. It measured sixteen feet by four, dimensions which made it impossible then to consider as a work of art in its own right, unlike the other nine tapestries. No client would ever buy the cartoon of the tapestry alone, whereas any one of the others might attract a buyer. There is however decisive proof that, whatever the fate of the St Paul in Prison after the initial weave for the Sistine Chapel, it was never acquired by Crane. No record survives of a Mortlake tapestry copy. Thus all that can be suggested from the tenor of Crane's letter to Trumbull of November 1622 is that Crane was pursuing a cartoon designed by the Raphael circle, now impossible to identify. It is not known whether Crane was successful in securing his copies from Florence, though it might be thought there is some evidence to suggest so. In 1629, Dru Burton, Auditor-General at Mortlake, presented a petition against Crane whom he suspected of over-charging on a massive scale, thereby receiving excessive profits from his Directorship.^** After detailing his case at some length. Burton went on: '... So that the gaine of that manufacture may be thought to have exceeded any other in the kingdome and that with little or no adventure or hazard, and if it have no more examin[at]ion or comptrolling put upon it then it hath had hetherto, may grow to be exorbitant, especially if any great Workes (such as that of the Apostles) bee to bee made...'. Burton's complaint comes just two years after Crane's request to the Grand Duke; time enough for the request to be granted, copies made, cases packed and shipped from Livorno, looms set in readiness at Mortlake. Ostensibly there is more encouragement for the belief that Crane obtained what he wanted from Florence. Gregorio Panzani, papal envoy in London during the mid 1630s, wrote to Cardinal Francesco Barberini on 17 September 1636 about Barberini's interest in acquiring Mortlake tapestries. Panzani informed him that the tapestries were of the very richest gold and silk, valued at 3,000 scudi each. He also reported that there were seven pieces after designs by Raphael of the Acts of the Apostles and, in addition, 'three other pieces of the same story, which are copies from similar designs by the said Raphael'. As for the quality of the group as a whole, 'they are esteemed things of the 157 utmost rarity'.*^ Panzani then added that Crane was thinking of sending two pieces to Rome at his own expense."*^ If Barberini concluded the sale. Crane would ensure that a set was finished within two years of an order being received. Yet there are decisive arguments for suggesting that copies of the two cartoons in Florence were not forthcoming. A set of The Acts of the Apostles, now the property of the French State, was acquired by Cardinal Mazarin in 1659 and left by him to Louis XIV. The set almost certainly came from the collection of Charles I, but it contains neither The Stoning of St Stephen nor The Conversion of Saul. If Charles I had not possessed these, the obvious inference is that such tapestries were never woven, a point reinforced by the absence of precisely these two subjects in any of the ten or so remaining sets, whether these were made up all from one , or put together from several different production lines. Curious though it may seem, Panzani's letter was written two months after Crane had died in Paris: clearly Panzani had not received the latest news from France. In March 1636 Crane, with six servants, had been granted a pass by the King to go to France to be operated on for the stone.^^ Seventeenth-century medicine was a decidedly hazardous business: Crane developed gangrene, from which he died. Crane's last, unfinished venture, these dealings with the great papal family of the Barberini, stands as a testament to the distinction of the Mortlake factory and as epitaph to its first director. But Charles I needed no testament; he quickly wrested control of the tapestry works from the beneficiaries of Crane's will and, thereafter, took a closer personal interest in its fortunes than any other project connected with the arts during the years of Personal Rule, that great epoch for entrepreneurial endeavour in English social history. Amongst the papers of Charles I's Attorney-General, Sir John Bankes, are some connected with the transference of ownership of the works from the executors of Sir Francis to the Crown. These, read in conjunction with supplementary papers in the Public Record Office, give a fair indication of the prodigious output of what by then were clearly commodities only for the very rich. After the death of Sir Francis in 1636, his brother Captain Richard Crane took over the works: but either because tapestry-making was not to the liking of this military man, or because of the burden of debt, transference of ownership to the Crown was to be effected within the year. Matters began with the Attorney-General sorting out Sir Francis's accounts. On 12 November 1636 Bankes had mastered the detail sufficiently to think that Sir Francis had owed the Crown l2,M^l^ gd at his death.^^ Some six months later, Charles I issued a warrant to Inigo Jones: 'to view and value tapestry woorke houses at Mortlake because his Ma*'^ intendeth to buy from Cap* Crane, all the Work houses, where the Tapistries are made, at Mortelack togeither w*^ all the loomes, Patternes, the M' Workmans house, the dye house, and all the appurtences thereunto belonging. "*^ It would appear however that most of what Jones surveyed was subsequently handed over as a 'gift' to the Crown. Last amongst these Bankes papers is an inventory of tapestries and plant given by Captain Crane to the King. Alongside each item is a 158 valuation, as if to suggest that the inventory was being used to balance the ^£3,141 and more which, Bankes then calculated. Sir Francis had owed the Crown: A particular of Captain Crane's gift to the King: A rich piece of Elymas with a Gold border delivered to his majesty containing 84 ells at £S per ell. £772 A piece of Saphira of the same suit coming out of Spain containing 84 ells at the same price A piece of sheep of the same suit upon the looms whereof is made 46^ ells ^£368 Divers patterns which cost £373 The looms with other utensils in the workhouses and dyehouse. £100 The workhouses, master workman's home and dyehouse Total ^^ With new ownership came a new director. Sir James Palmer, amateur painter and contributor to the King's collection.^^ Palmer was appointed as 'Governor of his Ma^^ Tapestry Workes' and an indenture survives specifying the new contractual arrangements with the tapestry workers. On 25 June 1638 it was agreed between Palmer and Phillip Hullenberth and other weavers that ' every year they [the weavers] have to make six hundred elles of Arras and Tapestry hangings according to the measure of the Flemish ell fully and completely finished and done with good sound and perfect stuff'. It was also specified that this was to include 150 ells 'hangings of the best at the rate of £i{ 6s 6d, the Flemish eir. In addition there were to be 200 ells of the 'second sort' at £2 5s 6d, and 250 ells at £2 12s 6d. The document then gave the Crown the option of changing the proportions of the three qualities of tapestry so that Charles could instead undertake to buy 450 ells of the best, or 600 of the second sort or, finally, 750 of the cheapest. It further specifies that the weavers were to be paid £500 on 8 May, August, November and February. Lastly, , resident artist at Mortlake, was to be paid ^£250 per year.^^ It is well known that Charles I loved to be closeted with Inigo Jones to view a new consignment of Italian pictures, but the King's passion for tapestries has been underestimated. Matters had come far since Charles had taken the initiative in buying the . The story did not end with the Civil War, for Cromwell clothed his nakedness as ruler in the gold and silver thread of Mortlake. What had first been created by Sir Francis Crane, vitally assisted by William Trumbull, served both the Lord's Anointed and a usurping tyrant. Mortlake tapestries proved to be the finest in Europe in their day, while Crane can be credited with establishing the first successful decorative arts manufactory in England or, as one of Crane's contemporaries put it, 'the noblest manufactory that any king of England hath brought in these many hundred years'.^^ Although the factory was never to be quite the same after the death of Crane in 1636, production continued until 1703. Mortlake was the most abiding achievement of a golden age in England for the arts, but it was also an achievement which Sir Francis could not have accomplished without the help of William Trumbull at Brussels.

159 I would like to thank Wendy Hefford, Deputy *Van Dyck and George Gage', in David Curator, Textiles and Dress, Victoria and Albert Howarth (ed.). Art and Patronage in the Caroline Museum, and Tom Campbell of The Franses Courts (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 1-12. Tapestry Archive, for kindly reading this article 16 Sainsbury, p. 56. in draft, and for making a number of helpful 17 Ibid., pp. 57^8; suggestions. 18 Divid Howarth, 'Rubens's "owne pourtrait'", I Sonia P. Anderson, 'The elder William Trum- Apollo {Oct. i()^), pp. 238-42. bull : a biographical sketch', British Library 19 See, in particular, W. G. Thomson, A History of Journal, xix (1993), pp. 115-32, and Leonard Tapestry (London, 1906), ch. xiii, ^History of Forster, *The Weckherlin Papers', ibid., pp. The Manufactory of Tapestries at Mortlake', 334 pp. 291-331, and idem. Tapestry Weaving in 2 See David Howarth, Lord Arundel and his Circle England (London and New York, 1914). For a (New Haven and London, 1985), pp. 67-8, for a biographical account of Sir Francis Crane, see transcription of a letter now in the Trumbull Laurence Martin, 'Sir Francis Crane: Director Alphabetical Correspondence in the British of the Mortlake Tapestry Factory and Chan- Library. The letter was written by Arundel to cellor of tbe Order of the Garter', Apollo (Feb. Trumbull and in it he attempts to describe the 1981), pp. 90-6. great Sebastiano del Piombo double portrait of 20 See T. B. Pugh, 'A Portrait of Queen Anne of Ferry Carondolet and attendants. Arundel Denmark at Parham Park, Sussex', The Sev- acquired this picture with Trumbull's aid. It is enteenth Century, viii, no. 2 (Autumn 1993), pp. now in the Collection Thyssen-Bornemisza. 167-80, where we are told that the industry of 3 BL, Trumbull MS. Alph. XXXVI, ff. 185V-186 the worms was such that they produced enough (Antwerp, 16 May 1625). silk taffeta to make one dress for Anne of 4 Ibid., f. 187 (22 May 1625). I am extremely Denmark. grateful to Gregory Martin for drawing my 21 Thomson, Tapestry Weaving, p. 68. Letter from attention to these Skynner letters, and for letting the Privy Council addressed to Sir Thomas me publish his discovery. I would also like to Smyth, Sir Lionel Cranfield, Sir Richard Weston thank Lome Campbell for discussing their and Sir John Wolstenholme. significance. 22 Carleton to Buckingham, 'Hagh this 20th of 5 Francis Haskell, 'Charles I's Collection of 9ber 1620', Trumbull MS. Alph. XVI, f. -j^d. Pictures', in Arthur MacGregor (ed.). The Late On 6 Nov. Carleton had written to Buckingham: King's Goods (London & Oxford, 1989), p. 221. ' My wife will know y' L"' minde touching the 6 BL, Trumbull Papers,' Weckerling Papers', vol. hangings at Delph. The original of y' L^' picture 2, Diary. I send by this bearer. Mons' S'melston hath one 7 'At some date between 1627 and 1630 the King of the copies - and I challenge an other, who am gave the book to his Lord Chamberlain, the Earl y LP' most faythfu" and obliged servant Dudley of Pembroke, in exchange for Raphael's painting Carleton of St George and the Dragon, now in Washing- I presumed I might safely say I had sent y' L'" ton. ' Holbein and the Court of Henry VIII, picture, but Michel of Delph is now come to me Exhibition Catalogue, The Queen's Gallery, and sayth there yet wants some worke about the Buckingham Palace,i978-9 (London, 1978), p.ii. clothes and that he hath taken no copies but one 8 W. Noel Sainsbury, Original Unpublished Papers for Smelston whereas y^ L^ ordained one for y' Illustrative of the Life of Sir Peter Paul Rubens self besides the original and he will keepe for the (London, 1859), pp. 48-64, covering the period ... [words bound into the sewing of the manuscript] 12 July 1619-1 Mar. 1623. ...one which must serve me for the same 9 Trumbull MS. Alph. XLVII, f. 5a. purpose.' Trumbull MS. Alph. XVI, f 71c. 10 Trumbull MS. Alph. XVII, f. 5c (i Apr. 1622). This group of portraits of Buckingham may 11 Ibid., f. 58c. have been the first of various series produced in 12 Trumbull MS. Misc. XIV, f. 6. the Miereveld workshop over a number of years. 13 Sainsbury, p. 49. One portrait from such a series was included in 14 Trumbull MS. Misc. XI, f. 138. the exhibition. The Age of Charles I, Tate 15 For Gage's diplomatic career, see Susan Barnes, Gallery, 1972 (London, 1972), no. 9.

160 23 J. Shearman, RaphaePs Cartoons in the Collection at once', that is to say, in the,J52os, after the first of Her Majesty The Queen (London, 1972), pp. sets of tapestries had been woven from it. 145-6. 40 Thomson, Tapestry Weaving, p. 80. 24 G. Baker, History of the County of Northampton- 41 Vatican Archives, MS. Barberini Latina 8637, f. shire (London, 1822—41), vol. ii, p. 241. 273V (17 Sept. 1636). Panzani mentions ten 25 Ibid., p. 242. tapestries, not nine. This was probably because 26 W. Foster, The English Factories in India, 13 The Death ofSapphira was on offer; this was not vols. (Oxford, 1906-27), passim. one of the original Sistine Chapel tapestries, but 27 When Charles I took Mortlake under the a design which it is known Mortlake made protection of the Crown, subsequent to the death available along with its own tapestry copies after of Sir Francis Crane in 1636, the Attorney the Raphael cartoons. General, charged with putting the accounts in 42 Perhaps this reference is connected in some way order, made the following note to himself: 'A with the entry in Abraham Van der Doort's pardon from the King...of all former debts, catalogue of the Royal Collection in 1639 of reckonings, accounts and demands - a recital of certain items kept in store in the Passage Room the Exchequer suit and a release and discharge between the Banqueting House and the Privy thereof. His Majesty will undertake the works Lodgings. The list included the two Raphael for the time to come. His Majesty will procure 4 cartoons of The Blinding of Elymias and The suits of rich hangings sent 7 years since into the Death of Ananias which for some unexplained East Indies to be delivered... without paying reason, but perhaps connected with negotations custom'. Bodleian Library, Bankes Papers, with the Barberini, had been separated from 16/12. what Van der Doort specifies were the other five 28 Trumbull MS. Misc. XI, item 145. Raphael cartoons: 'ite te first karton bin War 29 W. Knowler (ed.). The Earl of Strajffbrde's annaijas Was strucken det befor de apostels Wij Letters and Dispatches, 1 vols. (Dublin, 1740), karton kontijns 6 paijns vol. ii, p. 43. ite de veli second karton don bij raffel orbin 30 Sheffield Gty Libraries, Wentworth Woodhouse bin War san paulus is konjoring tu bi Muniments, Str. 17(18). Published by kind strucken blijnt befor al tat Wer der'. Oliver permission of the Olive, Countess FitzwilHam's Millar (ed.), Abraham Van der Doorfs Catalogue Wentworth Settlement Trustees, and the Di- of the Collections of Charles /, Walpole Society, rector, Sheffield City Libraries. xxxvii (Glasgow, i960), p. 179. 31 Trumbull MS. Misc. XIV, f. 37 (19 Feb. 43 P.R.O., PC 2/46. The English virtuoso Sir 1621/2). Kenelm Digby, in Paris at the same time as 32 Ibid., f. Ill (27 Sept. 1622). Crane, wrote to the Secretary of State, Sir John 33 Ibid., f. 174 (30 Nov. 1622). Peter de Maecht, Coke, to tell him that Crane had died on 6 July who had settled at Middleburg in Zeeland in the and how he thought him 'as generous a sixteenth century, was a member of a famous gentleman and that had as constant an heart as I weaving family. Jan de Maecht had been have bin acquainted withall'. He went on to say summoned to Paris to help set up the tapestry how Dr Davisson, during the course of Crane's works there, before being enticed to Mortlake illness, 'was scarce one whole houre in the day or where he oversaw the first set to be woven: night out of his presence ... although I know the stories illustrating the legend of Vulcan and singular regard he bore him would have bound Venus. him, yet I am like wise assured that the 34 Shearman, p. 146. understanding he had of his Ma^'^^ gratious 35 Ibid., p. 147. inclination to Sr Francis made him straine 36 Ibid., p. 144. himselfe even beyond his power... '. Digby to 37 Florence, Archivio di Stato, MS. Mediceo 4196 Coke, Paris, 18 July 1636, P.R.O., SP 78/101, f (unfoliated). Author's translation. 238. For Crane's last illness see L. Martin, 'Sir 38 Ibid. Francis Crane, Kt. and Dr William Davison: . 39 Shearman, p. 145, where he suggests the patient and doctor in Paris in 1636', Medical possibility that the Paul in Prison was 'discarded History, xxiii (1979), pp. 346-51.

161 „,,.,.. o 1 13 A / Millar (ed.), Abraham Van der Doort's Gatahgue 44 Bodleian Library, Bankes Papers, 16/11. iviuiarvc";. rrunrh^l n 120 45 P.R.O., PC 2/47! <^f^^' Gollecttons of Gharles I, p. 120. 46 Bodleian Library, Bankes Papers, 16/39. ^8 P-RO., E 35i/45/34i5- 47 Palmer copied .Tarquin and Lu^ret.a hy Titian 49 Thomson, Tapestry Weaving, p. 76. which he then presented to the King. Oliver

162