Two Eighteenth-Century Sculpture Acquisitions for the Victoria and Albert Museum, London
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MA.NOV.Trusted.pg.proof.corrs_Layout 1 19/10/2012 10:07 Page 773 Two eighteenth-century sculpture acquisitions for the Victoria and Albert Museum, London by MARJORIE TRUSTED TWO IMPORTANT EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY sculptures were recently purchased by the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, both to be classified as British, although the earlier of the two is by an artist from the Netherlands, and the later one a work produced in Rome. The purpose of this article is to highlight these exceptional acquisitions, and to summarise the history of each sculpture. 1 The earlier of the two, the Crouching Venus (Figs.35 and 36), sculpted in Carrara marble, and signed and dated 1702 by John Nost the Elder (active 1680s; died 1710), 2 was bought by the Museum in March 2012. 3 It is an extraordinarily early instance in Britain of a monumental freestanding life-size sculpture of a 35. Crouching Venus , by John mythological subject, carved in a classical style, some years before Nost, on its the Grand Tour became fashionable. The nude goddess half- contemporary kneels on an integral plain rectangular base, resting her left plinth. Signed and dated 1702. buttock on an overturned urn, her arms crossed in front of her Marble, 122 cm. breasts, her head turned to her right, and her hair partly coiled in high; 237 cm. a bun at the back of her head. She wears a bracelet on her upper with plinth. (Victoria and left arm. The sculpture is signed on the front of the base: ‘I. Nost Albert Museum, F. / 1702’. 4 Unusually for a sculpture of this date, the original London; plinth, of Sicilian and Belgian black marble, has survived purchased with the assistance (Fig.35). It closely resembles a design by Nost of the 1690s for a of the Hugh plinth for the statue of William III, a drawing also in the V. & A. 5 Phillips Bequest). The corners at the back of the plinth were cut away at some point, probably so that it could be accommodated in a niche (see by Charles I after 1631. In 1682 it was presented to Charles II by below). But the condition is generally good, since the piece Sir Peter Lely, who had bought it at the sale of Charles I’s goods, seems never to have been displayed outside. 6 after the king’s execution in 1649. For this reason it is sometimes Nost’s sculpture depends on the antique prototype of the known as the Lely Venus .8 Nost is extremely likely to have Crouching Venus (or Crouching Aphrodite ), a Hellenistic sculpture, known it, since he had numerous patrons at court, not least the perhaps dating from the 3rd century BC, of which several monarchs themselves, William and Mary, by whom he was versions are known: in the Uffizi, Florence, in the Musée du awarded commissions at Hampton Court. 9 Louvre, Paris, in the Museo Nazionale delle Terme, Rome, and Nost’s interpretation of this classical prototype is not unique, elsewhere. 7 One version, however, dating from the 2nd century although it is among the earliest. Other post-classical copies and AD, in the Royal Collection, and now on long-term loan to the variants of the Crouching Venus were made in France and Italy British Museum, may well have been the specific model on during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, notably a which Nost’s sculpture is based. The Royal Collection work was variant by Antoine Coysevox (1640–1720) dating from 1686. owned by the Gonzaga Dukes of Mantua, and had been acquired Tommaso Solari made a garden sculpture of the Venus in 1762, I am particularly indebted to John Brushe for drawing my attention to a number of period of deferral, the V. & A. raised the sum needed for its acquisition, partly using important sources, and for his pertinent and informed comments on the Deare relief funds from the Hugh Phillips Bequest. and its history. I should also like to thank Jon Bolter, Julius Bryant, Richard Davis, 4 The total height of the sculpture and plinth is 237 cm.; the height of the statue Sarah Healey, Charlotte Hubbard, Alastair Laing, Stuart Lochhead, James Stevenson, alone is 122 cm. Mercè Valderrey, Emma Whinton-Brown and Paul Williamson for their assistance 5 Inv. no.9145; see J. Physick: Designs for English Sculpture 1680–1860 , London 1969, in a variety of ways in the preparation of this article. p.56, fig.30. 1 They are now on display in the Dorothy and Michael Hintze Galleries at the V. & A. 6 Some pock marks are visible on the surface of the marble figure, as is the natural 2 For Nost, see I. Roscoe, ed.: A Biographical Dictionary of Sculptors in Britain veining of the stone. The fingers and thumb of the left hand are later replacements, 1660–1851 , New Haven and London 2009, pp.913–17; entry by M.G. Sullivan. and the right hand seems to have been broken and re-affixed. There are also some 3 Inv. nos.A.5:1 and 2-2012. The sculpture came to the Museum as a result of surface chips on the figure and on the plinth. an export deferral by the Culture Minister, Ed Vaizey, in November 2011, on the 7 F. Haskell and N. Penny: Taste and the Antique. The Lure of Classical Sculpture , New recommendation of the Reviewing Committee for the Export of Works of Art and Haven and London 1981, pp.321–23. See also B.S. Ridgway: Hellenistic Sculpture I. Objects of Cultural Interest, since it was deemed to be of outstanding interest for the The Styles of ca. 331–200 B.C. , Bristol 1990, pp.230–32 and pls.112a–c. study of British sculpture in the eighteenth century, the third of the three Waverley 8 A.H. Scott-Elliot: ‘The Statues from Mantua in the Collection of King Charles I’, criteria. For this specific case, see the press release issued by Arts Council England THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE 101 (1959), pp.220, 222 and 226, no.88. and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 4th November 2011. During the 9 Roscoe, op. cit. (note 2), p.913. the burlington magazine • cliv • november 2012 773 MA.NOV.Trusted.pg.proof.corrs_Layout 1 19/10/2012 10:07 Page 774 TWO SCULPTURE ACQUISITIONS FOR THE V. & A. and bronze statuettes dating from the late eighteenth and early sculpture of the seventeenth century with classical forms nineteenth century were produced by Giacomo Zoffoli (active ultimately stemming from Rome. 1763–84), Giovanni Zoffoli (c.1745–1805), and Francesco The Venus is a remarkable instance of Nost’s assured carving. Righetti (1749–1819). 10 The idealised beauty of the figure, as well as the graceful serpen - Nost’s Crouching Venus was probably made for the statesman tine pose, while deriving, of course, from the classical template and lawyer Andrew Archer (1659–1741) for Umberslade Hall, on which is it based, recall Giambologna’s work of a century Warwickshire. Archer was the brother of the gentleman before. 17 Its scale and accomplishment give it a grandeur and architect Thomas Archer (c.1668–1743). 11 Umberslade had been presence which were truly exceptional at that date in Britain. As constructed c.1695–1700, and it is thought that the sculpture in its prototype, Venus is depicted ineffectually attempting to was intended to be placed in the entrance hall. It was apparently cover her nakedness, her gesture only succeeding in drawing originally paired with a statue of Apollo, perhaps a version of the attention to her sensual body. The goddess is thought to be Apollo Belvedere , now lost. 12 No documentation of the commis - bathing, or possibly adjusting her hair, and caught unawares. 18 sion survives, and it is first recorded at Umberslade in 1815, when When the Hellenistic original was created in Greece, the female the house was described as being ‘long neglected’ and ‘entirely nude was relatively novel; previously only males were so depict - unfurnished and forsaken’. 13 It had not been regularly occupied ed. 19 Nost’s sculpture suggests the sophisticated level of patronage since 1778, the date of the death of the 2nd Lord Umberslade, of the wealthy gentry in Britain at the start of the eighteenth also called Andrew Archer, the second son of the probable patron century, and tantalisingly evokes the way in which interiors of the sculpture. The 2nd Lord Umberslade was the younger of eighteenth-century country houses were adorned with brother of Thomas Archer (died 1768), the 1st Lord Umberslade, sculpture. In its present setting at the V. & A. it can clearly be seen who had originally inherited the hall on the death of the to form part of the tradition of British sculpture, a classicising first Andrew Archer in 1741. In 1858 the house was sold to the successor to the seventeenth-century work of Nicholas Stone Muntz family, who re-modelled it, and the sculpture’s position (1586/7–1647) and foreshadowing the slightly different classical in the new entrance hall was therefore a later placement. Poss ibly interpretations of Henry Cheere (1703–81), John Cheere at that date the plinth was cut down at the back, so that it could (1709–87) and Joseph Nollekens (1737–1823). 20 be accommodated in the niche. In the 1970s the house was sold The second of the two sculpture acquisitions here under dis - once more and converted into flats. 14 But the Muntz family cussion dates from the end of the eighteenth century, and came retained ownership of the Crouching Venus , although it con tinued to the Museum as the result of the munificent bequest of Count to be housed at Umberslade.