Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest, note of case hearing on 15 January 2014: A Portrait of Everhard Jabach and family by (Case 23, 2013-14)

Application

1. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (RCEWA) met on 15 January 2014 to consider an application to export A Portrait of Everhard Jabach and family, by Charles Le Brun. The value shown on the export licence application was £7,300,000 which represented the price agreed through a private sale, subject to the granting of an export licence. The expert adviser had objected to the export of the portrait under the second and third Waverley criteria, on the grounds that it was of outstanding aesthetic importance; and that it was of outstanding significance for the study of group portraiture in Europe in the 17th century.

2. The eight regular RCEWA members present were joined by three independent assessors, acting as temporary members of the Reviewing Committee.

3. The applicant confirmed that the owner understood the circumstances under which an export licence might be refused and that, if the decision on the licence was deferred, the owner would allow the picture to be displayed for fundraising.

Expert’s submission

4. The expert adviser had provided a written submission stating that the Portrait of Everhard Jabach and family, by Charles Le Brun was a masterpiece of group portraiture. Everhard Jabach, a wealthy banker from , had settled in Paris in 1638 and become ’s banker in 1642. He had commissioned portraits of himself by Van Dyck during his earlier visit to England (1636-37) and had significant collections of paintings, drawings, and sculpture, much of which, after their partial sale to Louis XIV, became the nucleus of the Royal collections (now those of the ). The present picture was one of two versions, the other version (seen by Sir Joshua Reynolds in Cologne in 1781) having been given by Jabach to his brother-in-law Heinrich and probably destroyed in 1945 in the Kaiser-Friedrich Museum, Berlin.

5. Le Brun’s group portrait of Jabach’s family had been structured with extraordinary skill, enriched by a meaningful iconography and animated by a subtle variety of poses and expressions. The artist had enhanced the painting’s meaning by creating compositional links between learning and members of the Jabach family, with the inclusion of various objects including a celestial globe, a closed Bible, a book of Serlio’s showing geometrical drawings and most prominently a bust of Minerva. Positioned strategically between the bust of Minerva and Jabach was Le Brun’s self-portrait reflected in a mirror, referring to the close relationship between patron and painter. A play of colours had been created by the offsetting of Jabach’s sober black costume and the (mainly) primary colours of the costumes of his family, which was added to by a play of straight lines and curves in a precisely ordered composition. A gender divide had also been suggested by the division of the floor between a carpeted area and an area of marble. It included a number of interesting combinations of composition and iconography, with for example the young Everhard shown poised between the pursuits of childhood (the pet dog and toy horse) and those of adulthood (the sources of learning). It was a culminating point in Le Brun’s activity as a portraitist, having recently been described as a French Las Meninas (Coquery 1997). In a period where all thinking about inheritance was dominated by the idea of primogeniture, this family portrait was also extraordinary in that it gave prominence to the new-born son Heinrich (whose homonymous godfather was given one of the two versions of the picture), to whom attention is paid by his sisters rather than to the elder son Everhard, whose presence is noted neither by his parents nor by his sisters. Further research might reveal whether the composition had been reworked.

6. There was only a handful of paintings by Le Brun in British public collections, none of which was a portrait. Only one other surviving group portrait by Le Brun was known, that of the Chancellor Séguier and his pages (Louvre) and no other family group portrait was known. The depiction of such affective relationships in informal, dynamic poses in 17th-century group family portraits was a practice of Northern artists, and the portrait would offer the British public the opportunity to appreciate how the artist, more readily associated with an academic style, could brilliantly assimilate the lessons of Northern painting into the type of rigorous composition associated with French painting in the middle of the 17th century.

7. When questioned about the versions of the picture, the expert suggested that the present work was the prime version, something supported by the technical evidence. They agreed that such a group portrait was rare outside royal circles in that period, and that a fascinating comparison could be made with later royal portraiture of the time, including the family portraits of the Grand Dauphin and of James II in exile by Le Brun’s subsequent great rival, Pierre Mignard, versions of each of which have long been in collections in the UK.

Applicant’s submission

8. The applicant had stated in a written submission that, in relation to the first Waverley criterion, the portrait was not a work directly pertinent to the history of British art, having had no impact on British painting and having been overlooked by scholars. It had in general been considered by scholars to be the second version of the prime Berlin painting. It was the applicant’s opinion that, given the portrait was by a French artist of a German sitter whose importance with regards to the history of collecting in Britain was negligible, the painting did not have a particularly close connection to either our history or our national life. The picture had never been exhibited publicly in the United Kingdom since its sale at Christie’s in 1816, nor had it ever been the subject of scholarly debate or discussion in this country. There had been no interest in tracing its British provenance, or in bringing it to a wider audience in this country.

9. In relation to the second Waverley criterion, the picture’s aesthetic qualities had been compromised by its condition. A section along the top edge (approximately 18 inches deep) had been folded over the stretcher long ago in order to hang the work in a relatively low-ceilinged entrance hall, where it had been for past decades. This reduced the visual impact of the work considerably and caused not inconsiderable damage to the original canvas and paint layer, which would require heavy investment in time and expertise to address.

10. Regarding the third Waverley criterion, the picture was clearly of historic interest, but there were other works by the artist in the UK, including paintings that might be thought to represent his contribution to the history of art rather more so than this portrait. One might cite works by other artists which were arguably of greater importance. Le Brun was not an artist who was noted for his portraiture, it was as a history painter that he had staked his claim as a great artist, and his activity as a portraitist had been of negligible importance to the reception of 17th-century French painting in Britain. As much had already been written about the artist, the sitter and this particular composition, it was unlikely that further study of this painting would enhance its significance. While its re- emergence was noteworthy, it was not of national importance.

11. When questioned about the condition of the picture, the applicant replied that the picture had been folded and not cut in the upper edge, and conceded that the overall paint surface was, in general, well preserved.

Discussion by the Committee

12. The expert adviser and applicant retired and the Committee discussed the case. The Committee considered the painting to be an intriguing and impressive work of tremendous scale, in which the artist had successfully combined intimate domesticity with grandeur in a remarkable composition. The damage to the painting could be addressed with careful restoration. The work was a rare example of a group portrait by Le Brun and was particularly important in the context of the study of 17th-century group portraiture in Europe, not least in France. The work witnessed a specific moment in time immediately before the rise of the French Academic school, and Louis XIV’s notable patronage of the artist. Fuller technical examination was likely to shed further light on the evolution of the composition, particularly with regard to changes in the positions of Jabach’s children, while the study of the painting’s provenance might also produce interesting material concerning early 19th- century English collecting.

Waverley Criteria

13. The Committee voted on whether the Portrait of Everhard Jabach and family, by Charles Le Brun met the Waverley criteria. Of the eleven members, no members voted that it met the first Waverley criterion. Nine members voted that it met the second Waverley criterion. All eleven members voted that it met the third Waverley criterion. The painting was therefore found to meet the second and third Waverley criteria, on the basis that it was of outstanding significance for the study of group portraiture in Europe in the 17th century.

Matching offer

14. The Committee recommended the sum of £7,300,000 as a fair matching price.

Deferral period

15. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Secretary of State that the decision on the export licence should be deferred for an initial period of three months. If, within that period, Arts Council England received notification of a serious intention to raise funds with a view to making an offer to purchase the painting, the Committee recommended that there should be a further deferral period of five months.

Communication of findings

16. The expert adviser and the applicant returned. The Chairman notified them of the Committee’s decision on its recommendations to the Secretary of State. The applicant confirmed that the owner would accept a matching offer at the price recommended by the Committee if the decision on the licence was deferred by the Secretary of State.

17. The expert adviser agreed to act as champion if a decision on the licence was deferred by the Secretary of State.