paintinghist ory delaroche andCla dy janegrey stephenban nand lind a whiteley with john guy,christ opherriopelle and annerobbins

National Gallery Company,Lo ndon Distributedby Ya leUn iversity Press

Delaroche 9.indd 2 21/12/2009 16:00 Delaroche 9.indd 3 16/12/2009 09:37 Contents ^

This catalogue is published to accompany Director’s Foreword · ¸ the exhibition Painting History: Delaroche and Lady Jane Grey The National Gallery, London, õ February to õÁ May õ‘b‘ Authors’ Acknowledgements · y Copyright © õ‘b‘ National Gallery Company Limited The Authors have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents The Story of Lady Jane Grey · Ž Act, bŽšš, to be identified as Authors of this work. John Guy All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any storage and retrieval system, without the prior Lost and Found · by permission in writing of the publisher. Christopher Riopelle First published in Great Britain in õ‘b‘ by National Gallery Company Limited St Vincent House · Á‘ Orange Street The Sense of the Past · õÓ London „dA4 ²44 Linda Whiteley www.nationalgallery.co.uk %œvÍ: í ²ï°ïï²Éí ô²í ô The Victim as Spectacle: ïAïôÉ° Paul Delaroche’s ‘Lady Jane Grey’ and Mademoiselle Anaïs · ÁÓ British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. Stephen Bann A catalogue record is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Control Number: AÉÉíí{²ïô² d‰‰‰úºGÓ: · ¸ Publisher Louise Rice Stephen Bann and Linda Whiteley, Project Editor Claire Young Editor Rebecca McKie with Christopher Riopelle and Anne Robbins Picture Researcher Suzanne Bosman Production Jane Hyne and Penny Le Tissier Paul Delaroche: Chronology · bÓy Designed and typeset in Brunel by Dalrymple Anne Robbins Reproduction by Altaimage, London Printed in Italy by Conti Tipocolour

Cover, pages š, b¸, õ, Á and b‘¸–y (details): Paul Delaroche (byŽy–bšÓ¸), Lenders to the Exhibition · b¸‘ The Execution of Lady Jane Grey, bšÁÁ. Oil on canvas, double-lined, õÓb x Á‘õ cm. The National Gallery, London (ÍGÓÁ). Bibliography · b¸b Opposite title page: Jules-Gabriel Levasseur (bšõÁ–about bŽ‘‘), Photographic Credits · b¸¸ aFer Eugène Buttura (bšbõ–bšÓõ), Portrait of Paul Delaroche, bšÓÁ. Engraving on paper, õš x õb.Ó cm. Private Collection Appendix and IndeÌ · b¸y

Delaroche 9.indd 4 21/12/2009 16:04 Delaroche 9.indd 5 21/12/2009 16:07 The Story of Lady Jane Grey john guy ^

‰Í: G´:¹ 4‰œ ‰ú„‰¹œ been enveloped in myth. Her date of When Jane was ‘just fourteen’ in May bÓÓb, her own tutor, John birth is invariably wrongly stated, and allegations that her father Aylmer, praised her in a letter to the leading Swiss reformer Heinrich Jverbally and physically abused her as a child have been invented Bullinger.R Jane was encouraged to write to Bullinger herself: an ex- over the centuries to turn her into a victim as well as a tragic heroine iled German divine, John of Ulm, visiting Bradgate that spring, was (fig. b).¹ She was born at Bradgate in Leicestershire on the edge of the shown a copy of one of these letters.Ý Although formal, sententious Charnwood Forest in the spring of bÓÁy, the eldest surviving child of and awkward, her letters to Bullinger are in faultless Latin. ‘In writing Frances Brandon, Henry –%%%’s niece, and her husband Henry Grey, to you in this manner’, she explains, ‘I have exhibited more boldness Marquis of Dorset (later Duke of Suffolk).² Her father, unusually than prudence: but so great has been your kindness towards me, in well educated for a nobleman, was a bibliophile. Both Jane’s parents condescending to write to me, a stranger, and in supplying the nec- sympathised with the humanist and evangelical reformers, and she re- essary instruction for the adornment of my understanding and the ceived a superb education based on the model that Sir Thomas More improvement of my mind, that I should justly appear chargeable with had devised for his eldest daughter, Margaret. neglect and forgetfulness of duty, were I not to show myself mindful As a great-granddaughter of Henry –%%, the founder of the Tudor of you and of your deservings in every possible way.’h She began to dynasty, and a second cousin to Edward –% and his half-sisters Mary study Hebrew as well as Greek, so that she could read the Old and and Elizabeth, Jane was close to the court and its politics (see Jane’s New Testaments in the original, and a year or so later, Mildred Cooke, claim to the throne on p. b‘). By the terms of Henry –%%%’s will, should a kinswoman and another brilliant intellectual, the wife of Sir William his own children die without heirs, she was next in line of royal suc- Cecil, Elizabeth %’s future chief minister, sent her the Greek homilies cession aFer any son that her parents might have.³ And by the age of of Saint Basil.¹/ bb she had caught the eye of Thomas, Lord Seymour of Sudeley, one As Jane matured, she became increasingly confident and asser- of King Edward’s uncles, who had married Henry –%%%’s sixth queen, tive, determined to cultivate her status as an evangelical Protestant Katherine Parr, shortly aFer Henry’s death. Seymour had a scheme figurehead and not averse to one-upmanship. Although she had loved to marry Jane to Edward, and he bargained with the Greys for her fine clothes and braided hair as a child, when urged by her father and wardship. Jane was briefly installed at Seymour Place in London, but tutor to imitate her cousin Elizabeth in dressing plainly, she quickly a serious scandal involving Seymour’s ambitions and his relationship got the message, and when sent a costly dress of ‘tinsel, cloth of gold, with the young Elizabeth, on whom he also had designs, led to his fall and velvet, laid on with parchment lace of gold’ as a New Year’s giF and execution on a charge of treason, and Jane returned to Bradgate by Mary, a staunch Catholic, she asked curtly: ‘ “What shall I do with to resume her studies. it?” “Marry,” said a gentlewoman, “Wear it.” “Nay,” quoth she, “that In the summer of bÓӑ, Roger Ascham, the most famous Tudor were a shame to follow my Lady Mary against God’s word, and leave educationalist, visited Bradgate, where he found Jane reading Plato’s my Lady Elizabeth, which followeth God’s word.” ’¹¹ Phaedo in Greek ‘and that with as much delight as some gentlemen Religion lay at the heart of the political crisis in Edward –%’s reign. would read a merry tale in Boccaccio’. When he asked why she was not In the spring of bÓÓÁ, when Jane was b¸, the young king fell mortally ill out hunting with her family in the park, she smiled and said smugly: and planned to exclude his sisters from the succession. He believed that ‘All their sport in the park is but a shadow to that pleasure that I find neither could be trusted not to reverse or modify his new Protestant in Plato.’ì AFerwards, Ascham discreetly hinted that Jane was a better settlement. He was convinced that both were legally barred from scholar than her cousin Elizabeth, whose tutor he briefly was.9 inheriting the crown, for both had been declared illegitimate by his

8 | ADD RUNNING FOOT? £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹ | í

Delaroche 9.indd 8 15/12/2009 16:05 Delaroche 9.indd 9 16/12/2009 09:37 The Tudor Succession father’s Parliaments.¹² At this stage the idea that any woman, includ- ‘device’ had been the product of a deranged mind.¹R Although the ing Jane Grey, might succeed him was anathema to Edward. When young king had legally bound his privy councillors, nobles and judges ^ in April he first began to jot down his ideas to ‘devise’ the crown to a to observe his ‘device’ in the final days of his life, their consent had been Protestant heir, his tuberculosis was in remission and he envisaged extracted by fear and threats, and most people, especially the citizens that before his death, Jane’s mother, Frances, would have a son or that of London, continued to support Mary. The Duke of Northumberland HENRY VII Elizabeth of York Jane herself would marry and that her son would be the rightful suc- was sent with an army to defeat her, but when a naval squadron off m. b]X[–b[`_ b]YY–b[`Z cessor. To this end, a series of dynastic marriages was hastily arranged the Norfolk coast defected and handed over their artillery to her, his in late May by John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, the effective troops melted away. regent: Northumberland’s son, Guildford Dudley, was married to Jane As late as the bšth, Jane was still sending out letters signed ‘Jane and his allies betrothed to her sisters. the Quene’ to sheriffs and magistrates ordering them to rally and Catherine Arthur HENRY VIII Margaret Tudor Mary Tudor m. But in June bÓÓÁ, it was clear that Edward was dying. With insufficient emphasising that her rule was founded on ‘consent’ to Edward’s of Aragon d. b[`a b[`_–b[]\ d. b[]b d. b[ZZ time to summon Parliament, he therefore ‘devised’ the crown ‘to the ‘device’. But even her kinsman William Cecil was among those pre- m. m. m. ¹Ý L[ady] Jane and her heires masles’, followed by her sisters Katherine paring to slip away to Mary. ‘And seeing great perils threatened upon (b) Catherine (a) Anne Boleyn (Z) Jane Seymour (b) James IV (a) Archibald (b) Louis XII (a) Charles Brandon and Mary, and by the eldest son of their cousin Margaret Clifford if us by the likeness of the time’, he had scribbled in a note to Mildred, ‘I of Aragon m. b[ZZ, m. b[ZY, of Scotland Earl of Angus of France Duke of Suffolk m. b[`_, ex. b[ZY d. b[Z\ d. b[bZ div. b[aX d. b[b[ d.b[][ they died without heirs.¹³ How far Edward was Northumberland’s do make choice to avoid the peril of God’s displeasure.’¹h div. b[ZZ, puppet in making his ‘device’ is hotly contested, but the original docu- By late July, Mary had recovered the capital and the Dudleys were d. b[ZY ment is in Edward’s own handwriting throughout (fig. õ). imprisoned in the Tower. Jane, stripped of the crown jewels and her Henry Grey Frances Brandon When Edward died on ¸ July and Jane discovered she was queen, canopy of state, was escorted from the royal apartments and mocked Philip II Duke of Suffolk m. Duchess of Suffolk James V Margaret Douglas Matthew of Spain m. MARY I ELIZABETH I EDWARD VI ex. b[[] d. b[[_ she wept, but prayed to God that: ‘If what was given to me was rightly by the guard. For the next six months she was lodged at the house of of Scotland Countess m. Earl of Lennox d. b[_X b[[Z–b[[X b[[X–bY`Z b[]\–b[[Z mine, His Divine Majesty would grant me such grace as to enable me to William Partridge, an officer in the royal ordnance within the Tower, d. b[]a of Lennox d. b[\b Chronicle of Queen d. b[\X govern this Kingdom with his approbation and to his glory.’¹Â Although where on õŽ August the anonymous author of the m. Jane (b) Madeleine (a) Mary of Guise not officially proclaimed queen at the Tower until the b‘th, she saw , the most vivid and authentic account of the events of bÓÓÁ–, Lord Guildford JANE GREY Katherine Mary Grey daughter of d. b[Y` herself as born to lead the Protestant cause. Many historians have de- had dinner with her. Sitting in the place of honour ‘at the board’s proclaimed Grey d. b[YX d. b[\X ²/ Dudley m. picted Jane as innocent and manipulated, but she had been aware of end’, she made him welcome and asked for news of the outside world, Francis I of France ex. b[[] queen b[[Z m. the contents of Edward’s ‘device’ since at least the yth, and despite her before launching into a stinging attack on Northumberland, who d. b[Z\ ex. b[[] (b) Henry (a) Edward Seymour mother’s anger on first learning that she herself had been passed over, had been executed a week before aFer a spectacular recantation and Mary Lord Herbert Earl of Hertford the family was united behind her. What did genuinely shock Jane, and Queen of Scots diss. b[[] d. bYab ex. b[X\ where she was naive, was in not realising that she would have to satisfy [)%G. °] Attributed to Levina Teerlinc m. her new husband, Guildford, who demanded to be king. A furious row (about bÓõ‘–bÓy¸), Portrait of a Lady, possibly Lady Jane Grey (b) Francis II of France (a) Henry (Z) James Hepburn erupted between them at the Tower aFer Jane was handed the crown , possibly bÓÓÁ. Body colour on thin card, .š cm d. b[Y` Lord Darnley Earl of Bothwell jewels. Married in haste to a man she barely knew, she was never in diameter, Yale Center for British d. b[Y\ d. b[\X love, and told Guildford he could only be a duke. Hearing this, he d. died ¹ì Art. Paul Mellon Collection, New refused to sleep with her any longer until prevailed on to relent by the diss. dissolved Haven (vbŽy.õ.ӎ). The jewel div. divorced Earls of Arundel and Pembroke.¹9 on her breast and the spray ex. executed JAMES I of England Jane ruled until bŽ July. Whether she was the Nine Days’ Queen of foliage inserted behind it m. married and VI of Scotland depends on whether her reign is said to have begun with her acces- suggest that the sitter is Lady sion proclamation on the b‘th or with Edward’s death on the ¸th, in Jane Grey aFer her marriage which case she ruled for almost a fortnight. Her reign ended when to Guildford Dudley in May the Catholic Mary, who considered herself to be the rightful heir, led bÓÓÁ. The ‘‰Íº ̖%%%’ (i.e. ‘anno aetatis xviii’) inscription a successful counter-coup. Warned of Edward’s death, Mary had es- presents a difficulty in that Jane caped to East Anglia to muster her forces. In any case, the Protestants was not quite seventeen when were divided. Bishop Ridley of London preached vigorously for Jane, she was executed; however, such but John Bradford predicted civil war and suggested that Edward’s inscriptions are not always reliable.

°É | ‰4: œ‰º´¹ º) ú‰L¹ é‰Í:G´:¹ £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹ | °°

Delaroche 9.indd 10 16/12/2009 09:38 Delaroche 9.indd 11 16/12/2009 09:38 Lost and Found christopher riopelle ^

Í ‰4: œ£´%ÍG º) °í²{, a young curator at the Tate Gallery was Tate on an emergency footing. Nine ground-floor galleries were tem- at work on his first book, a monograph on the English Romantic porarily abandoned. Loan exhibitions were cancelled. Conservation Ipainter John Martin. Christopher Johnstone, who would go on to work immediately began on endangered pieces, not least b paint- direct the Auckland City Art Gallery in New Zealand, wanted to learn ings by Turner and thousands of works on paper.³ In the commotion, more about Martin’s first major commission, The Destruction of Pompeii Delaroche’s canvas was not judged a priority. Listing it along with and Herculaneum. A monumental painting of bšõõ, it had entered the the Martin among the bš spoiled paintings, the authors of the bŽÁ‘ Tate in bŽbš, but according to reports had been lost there, along with report added that in any event ‘few of these … would be regarded as Lady Jane Grey several other works, when the Thames flooded the Gallery basement of primary importance from an artistic point of view’. in the early hours of Saturday y January bŽõš. A report of bŽÁ‘ stated was rolled up, put away and, having been dismissed as aesthetically that bš oil paintings had been ‘completely spoiled’ in the flood, among negligible, forgotten. In bŽÓŽ it was definitively listed as ‘destroyed’.ì them the Martin.¹ Decades later rumours circulated to the contrary. Strange fate for an artist whose reputation had once ranked with ‘Someone had told me,’ Johnstone recalled, ‘that some of the paint- those of his acclaimed contemporaries Delacroix and Ingres! By com- Lady Jane Grey ings listed as lost or damaged beyond repair were not.’² mon consent, was among Delaroche’s masterpieces. Acting on a hunch, Johnstone persuaded Tate conservators to It had figured in one of the most significant collections of contem- double-check rolled canvases which had long been stored under large porary art of the day, that of the richissime Russian Count Anatole tables in the conservation studios. ‘There were quite a few rolled works Demidoff, later Prince of San Donato. Prints aFer it were dissemi- there. No one had looked at them for a very long time. … No one had nated worldwide (cat. yš). Indeed, it had been an artistic cause célèbre the faintest idea what was there – there were no labels attached.’ of France’s July Monarchy, famous from the moment it first went on Knowing the dimensions of the Martin, they looked for a large roll. display at the Paris Salon of bšÁ. Every day throughout the run of Johnstone recalls the excitement as unfurling began, for it was then the exhibition, admiring crowds gathered in front of it. They found that they discovered the Martin largely intact, if battered. And there themselves inexorably drawn to the poignant image of the by-year-old, was an unexpected bonus. Bound up with it in the same roll was an- blindfolded queen as she groped her way pitiably to the execution other monumental canvas that had been listed as lost in the flood, block. They were pulled in too by the intense realism of the scene, Paul Delaroche’s Execution of Lady Jane Grey (cat. ÓÁ). ‘My memory painted as if happening in our own space, and by the extrême perfec- was that the Martin had a corner chopped out,’ he recalled, ‘but the tion of its details, as one critic had it, including the rustling silk of the Delaroche was pristine.’ A photograph of the latter taken soon aFer girl’s dress and the strands of hay into which her severed head would the rediscovery confirms that the canvas was, by and large, in sound soon fall. Lady Jane Grey secured the reputation Delaroche had be- condition (fig. ). gun to build in the bšõ‘s for his depictions of scenes from English Lady Jane Grey had been bequeathed to the National Gallery history. With it he again demonstrated his uncanny ability, as the by Lord Cheylesmore and accepted by the Board of Trustees on critic Tardieu characterised it, to find ‘subjects that attack the nerv- b¸ December bŽ‘õ. Two days later, on bš December, it was transferred ous system of the public’.9 History seemed very real here, and utterly to the Tate Gallery, then known as the National Gallery Millbank, present. As another critic noted of the Lady Jane Grey phenomenon, where paintings of the Modern Foreign Schools were displayed. Its Delaroche’s ‘name is repeated in every salon, in every shop, with the subsequent exhibition history is complicated; by bŽõš, however, it was praises which accompanied that of M. Gérard fiFeen years ago, that no longer on view but relegated to the basement. The flood put the of David thirty years ago’.R

16 | ADD RUNNING FOOT? £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹ | °²

DDelarocheelaroche 99.indd.indd 1166 222/12/20092/12/2009 12:4312:43 Delaroche 9.indd 17 21/12/2009 16:16 Charles I insulted by the Soldiers of Cromwell (fig. 7) depicts the mock- Louvre – the room that gave the annual exhibition its name – and to ery and disdain to which the monarch was subjected by loutish guards hang it in the exact same place, ‘and at the same height’, where Lady in the days leading to his execution. The painting was commissioned Jane Grey had hung – and where it had enjoyed unprecedented public by Lord Francis Egerton, the future Earl of Ellesmere, at the height acclaim – three years earlier, at the Salon of ’34? ‘You see that I am of Delaroche’s fame in the mid-1830s. His brother, the Duke of not modest,’ he wrote.²¹ Sutherland, also acquired a painting on an English historical theme The success of 1834 was not to be repeated. This time around, the at the same time. On a visit to the artist’s studio early in January 1836 public largely ignored the artist’s paintings, and critics were divided. Sutherland was able to study that work for the first time, pronouncing Perhaps that is why Delaroche sought to rehang his strongest submis- Strafford on his Way to Execution (cat. 54) ‘one of the finest modern sion in a more advantageous position before it was too late. It doesn’t pictures I ever saw’. Egerton would be just as satisfied with his paint- seem to have helped. Summing up his assessment of Delaroche’s ing, the duke reassured their mother, as he had Delaroche’s word that submissions that year – the third picture he showed was Saint Cecilia Charles I ‘ will be as good’. ¹9 The two paintings were exhibited publicly (cat. 58) – Théophile Gautier declared the 1837 Salon a ‘fiasco’ for for the first time at the Paris Salon of 1837. Perhaps because they were the artist.²² The frenzy that in the past had greeted his monumental painted for scions of an august British family, they are sometimes de- depictions of moving moments from English history had begun to dis- scribed as pendants.²0 That the artist did not consider them so, and sipate, in France at least. It was the last Paris Salon to which Delaroche that he held Charles I in particular regard, is suggested by the request would ever send his works. Charles I and Strafford were brought to he made in the final days of the exhibition. Would the organisers be so Britain when the exhibition closed. The former canvas never returned kind as to move the painting into the prestigious Salon Carré of the to France. The death of the Earl of Ellesmere prevented it from

[FIG. 7] Paul Delaroche (1797–1856), Charles I insulted by the Soldiers of Cromwell, 1837 (detail). Oil on canvas, 284 x 392 cm. Private collection. This painting was badly damaged during the bombing of Bridgewater House, London, in 1941 (see fig. 8). This photograph was taken during [FIG. 6] H.H. Armstead (sculptor, 1828–1905), Albert Memorial frieze, in recent decades, and surveys in which he figures with increasing treatment at the National Gallery detail showing the Podium of the Painters, London (constructed 1872). Paul prominence, he again plays a significant role in discussions of nine- Conservation Department in 2009. Delaroche is shown seated in the centre. Positioned behind him from the teenth-century art. Once more his achievement is assessed in relation The photograph was taken from an le— are Delacroix, Vernet, Ingres and Decamps. acute angle. to Delacroix and Ingres, and not dismissively. It is in this context of continued public fascination and growing scholarly appreciation that has continued to this day. Such are the crowds which gather even now the present exhibition examines in depth the genesis of a remark- to study the canvas in rapt admiration that the polish on the wooden able painting which once survived a flood but had been written off floor directly in front is repeatedly worn away and must be regularly nonetheless. renewed by caretaking staff. Lady Jane Grey has remained on view continuously for 35 years now; on the one occasion when it was loaned to a travelling exhibition in 2003, Gallery officials soon heard about No less remarkable, a second major painting by Delaroche has re- visitors’ displeasure. Parents are keen to show it to their children, and cently emerged from obscurity. It too had been rolled up and stored enraptured schoolchildren to show it to their parents. Lady Jane Grey away a—er suffering damage, in this case almost 70 years ago, and its is high on the list of reasons why people come to the National Gallery. reappearance now may well prove as significant for an evolving assess- In the meantime, critics and art historians have caught up with ment of Delaroche’s achievement as the rediscovery of Lady Jane Grey the general public. Thanks to Delaroche exhibitions and monographs did in 1973.

20 | LOST AND FOUND PAINTING HISTORY | 21

DelarocheDelaroche 9.indd 20 15/12/2009 16:05 Delaroche 9.indd 21 15/12/2009 16:06 The Sense of the Past linda whiteley ^

Í °ïA{, œ%´ „‰ú‰:´ œdº‰‰ published his first novel on a French Blaz’d battlement, and pinnet high, theme, a chronicle of the life and times of a real historical figure, Blaz’d every rose-carved buttress fair Louis Ì% of France, seen through the eyes of an imaginary one: So still they blaze, when fate is nigh, I The lowly line of high St Clair. Quentin Durward, a Scottish archer. In contrast to his usual rapid  pace of composition, Quentin Durward necessitated many hours of research, much of it in the Advocates Library in Edinburgh.¹ One of Antiquarianism, the collection and study of historical remains, had the initial sources of Scott’s inspiration for the book, however, sprang been satirised since the seventeenth century as the pursuit of antique from the visit of his friend, James Skene (a fellow advocate and trivia by unworldly scholars. In early nineteenth-century France, how- amateur painter), newly back from a tour in France, with travel ac- ever, it took a particularly popular and emotive form, in reaction to counts, sketches and a collection of manuscripts, a resource to delight the destruction of antiquities during the Revolution. The Musée des a novelist-antiquarian, eager to take a subject at some distance from monuments français, set up by Alexandre Lenoir in an abandoned his customary interests. Skene’s architectural sketches must have been monastery in Paris as a refuge for fragments of monuments and other of special interest in this context, since the ancient castle of Plessis-les- works of art salvaged from destruction, became a place where what Tours, west of Tours, was to play a central role in the narrative. While was lost could be reconstructed through the evocative power of relics.ì in Aix-en-Provence, where for some time he had a house, Skene had Lenoir transformed the collection, set up originally as a simple reposi- come to know the Marquis de Forbin, the descendant of an ancient tory, into a fashionable museum which was open to the public from Provençal family. The Marquis gave him a vivid account of the revo- byŽÓ. It was divided into a series of rooms, each evoking a particular lutionary years, and of the resulting devastation of his own chateau, period of the French past. A number of artists, including Fleury La Barben (fig. Ž), an account which Walter Scott was to adapt, in Richard, Charles-Marie Bouton and Henriette Lorimier (cats. b, ¸), his introduction to Quentin Durward, as a fictional visit to a nobleman responded to the ‘inspiration of the past’ embodied in the museum, in whose ‘curious Gothic library’, he pored over ancient chronicles not only by incorporating the ‘real’ appearance of ancient artefacts which, he claimed, formed the basis for the novel.² While living in Aix, into their work, but at times evoking by scenes from history which where he had a number of friends, Skene may have come across a copy otherwise might have been leF to the imagination of the visitor. When of one of the earliest volumes of the Voyages pittoresques et romantiques Bouton painted the Fourteenth-Century Room in the museum, he con- en l’ancienne France, a picturesque tour by Charles Nodier and Isidore verted it, as it were, into a theatrical set, for the staging of the madness Taylor, published from bšõ‘, in which the link between medieval archi- of Charles –%. This kind of evocation was to have a number of parallels tecture and the history of ‘l’ancienne France’ was reinforced on almost with the pages of the Voyages pittoresques, to which Bouton himself (as every page (cat. y). In Charles Nodier’s words: ‘As for ourselves, the well as a number of theatrical scene-painters) contributed. last travellers among the ruins of old France, shortly to disappear, The response of historians and artists to Lenoir’s museum was ech- we choose to depict only those ruins whose secrets and whose history oed throughout France wherever there were ruins of ancient buildings would otherwise be lost forever…’³ Scott was already keenly aware of destroyed by the Revolution. François-Marius Granet, one of the pio- the power of buildings to evoke poetic and historic associations, and neers of ‘historic genre’, was first moved to paint a picture of this type thus to stimulate literary creation; in The Lay of the Last Minstrel, pub- by the sight of a moonlit Paris cloister which had been laid to waste Choir of lished in bš‘Ó, the destiny of the St Clair family is embedded within the during the Revolution,9 while the haunting atmosphere of his stones of Rosslyn Chapel (cat. Á): the Capuchin Church (cat. õ), his most famous work, was inspired by the

Aô | ‰LL ´ÓÍÍ%ÍG )ºº‰Y £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹ | Aï

Delaroche 9.indd 24 18/12/2009 16:29 Delaroche 9.indd 25 16/12/2009 09:39 The Victim as Spectacle: Paul Delaroche’s ‘Lady Jane Grey’ and Mademoiselle Anaïs stephen bann ^

Í {É à‰´d4 °ïôô, the first performance of Alexandre Soumet’s the painter Ernest Hébert, reinforced this claim in a letter which pin- play Jane Grey took place at the Odéon Theatre in Paris. AFer pointed the achievement: ‘you are the man who succeeded in moving Othe execution scene, according to the stage directions: ‘There people through the profound observation of concentrated drama, and appears in the distance the picture by M. Paul Delaroche’. This was through veiled terror (the gesture of Jane Gray [sic], the dog of the not the very painting that the admiring Parisian public had seen a Princes in the Tower). The [Assassination of ] the Duc de Guise is a decade before at the bšÁ Salon. That had passed into the collection masterpiece and perhaps even the masterpiece of present times.’² of the wealthy Russian Count Anatole Demidoff, and would not be Yet we get no further by endorsing contemporary judgements that visible until the retrospective following the artist’s death in bšÓ¸. But credit the success of Delaroche’s paintings to their kinship with spec- Soumet assumed that theatregoers would recall seeing the original tacle. What must be explained is the variety of different levels through picture in bšÁ, or at least be familiar with one of the engraved repro- which this new direction may be understood, and especially its inte- ductions that appeared in illustrated magazines. Here is an episode gral connection with Delaroche’s representation of victimhood. The where Delaroche’s kinship with theatre is evident, and it leads to the theme of the victim, or martyr, runs throughout his entire career, and following question. How may we understand the close link between is central to this exhibition. It is definitively expressed in his rendering The Execution of Lady Jane Grey and the practices of dramatic represen- of Lady Jane Grey. The previously unpublished material relating to tation current in Paris over the period? I shall attempt to answer this Delaroche’s personal life in the period when he was painting this work question on two levels, first by underlining the relevance to his work of suggests a new dimension to his involvement in theatre. It does not the concept of ‘spectacle’, and secondly by focusing on his relationship in itself explain the dramatic effect of the work. But it shows that the with one particular actress, Mademoiselle Anaïs, which helps us to emotional appeal of the historical victim was intensified, in this case, understand the special appeal of his Lady Jane Grey. by Delaroche’s passion for a luminary of the stage. In this debate about painting and theatre, it is not just a question Before turning to biography, however, it is necessary to give of the painter copying dramatic effects. Even where Delaroche ap- an account of Delaroche’s position as a rising young artist in post- pears close to theatrical spectacle, the objective is to reinvigorate the Napoleonic France, which will demonstrate the differing facets of art of picture-making. When the noted critic and novelist Stendhal his engagement with ‘spectacle’. The novelist Balzac, whose Comédie appraised Delaroche’s Death of Elizabeth at the bšõy/š Salon, he made humaine is a barometer of the national scene, visualises two students the distinction clear by condemning the tendency of French painters living penuriously in a garret in the Latin Quarter in the early bšÁ‘s, to ‘répétition’; by this he explicitly meant copying the manner of the and taking stock of the turbulent history of their times: ‘We looked on classical actor François-Joseph Talma, which had ‘ruined the pictures all these things as a spectacle, and we complained about them without of the old adherents of David’. With reference to this aping of the ourselves taking sides.’³ In the mid-bšõ‘s Balzac inhabited the same conventional gestures of the stage, Stendhal claimed: ‘The Death of building in the present rue Visconti as Delaroche and his friend from Queen Elizabeth, by M. Delaroche, is free from this unfortunate fault. Baron Gros’ studio, Eugène Lami. The situation of these rising young Thus the spectator believes himself to be taking part in this terrifying artists would not have been very different from the fictional case im- spectacle.’¹ For Stendhal, Delaroche’s achievement was precisely to agined by Balzac. Born in byŽy to the family of a cultivated but hardly have broken with the clichés of Neoclassicism, and to have inaugu- wealthy picture dealer, Delaroche had just reached adulthood when rated a new, intense form of audience participation, giving the illusion Waterloo sealed Napoleon’s defeat, and the exiled Bourbons returned of being a witness to the event portrayed. In bšÓ‘, Delaroche’s pupil, to rule France through an untried system of constitutional monarchy

34 | ADD RUNNING FOOT? £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹ | {ï

DDelarocheelaroche 99.indd.indd 3344 222/12/20092/12/2009 12:4312:43 Delaroche 9.indd 35 16/12/2009 09:40 4:Í´%:‰‰: úº´%à%:´ ®°²²ï–°ïïô0 At first a mere depot for objects removed d’Orléans, must have made her seem a [°] Jeanne de Navarre and her Son from churches and convents in the years suitable model for the lesser-known figure at the Tomb of Jean V following the Revolution, then picturesquely of Jeanne de Navarre, who features in , bš‘¸ transformed by Alexandre Lenoir, who Henriette Lorimier’s painting. Although the Oil on canvas, bŽŽ x b¸š.Ó cm took charge of it in byŽõ, the Musée des young widow was shortly to leave her chil- Musée National des Châteaux de Malmaison monuments français (as it came to be known) dren in the care of the duc de Bourgogne, et Bois-Préau (ààšš-Ó-b) opened on a permanent footing in byŽÓ, in when she herself became the second wife Provenance: bought for Empress Josephine, bš‘y; by the abandoned convent of the Augustins. It of Henry %– of England, her future destiny descent to Queen Hortense; returned to the heirs of survived there until bšb¸, the year following has, of course, no place in this work. Instead, Napoleon %%%, bššb; Empress Eugènie’s sale, bššb; Paris art market, bŽšš; acquired, Paris art market, bŽŽ. the Restoration of the Bourbon monarchy. the painter concentrates on a mother’s grief Though this was not the original intention, at losing her husband, and on her devotion this display of sculptural and architectural to his son, in a medieval variant on the fragments, chiefly from France’s medieval theme of the widowed mother, famously past, in a series of ‘period’ rooms, kept alive represented in classical guise in David’s and stimulated an imaginative interest in Andromache grieving over Hector. It was the history of France and its associated Henriette Lorimier’s only work of this kind. artefacts. The many tombs, with their gisants, She may have intended a contemporary or recumbent figures, were among the relics reference to the dynastic hopes at that time which spoke most directly to the visitors to resting in the children of Napoleon’s brother, the museum, among whom were a number of Louis Bonaparte, whose wife, Hortense de artists. One was the painter Fleury Richard, a Beauharnais, was the daughter (from her pupil of David, and one of the best-known of first marriage) of the picture’s first owner, the little group known as the ‘Troubadours’ Empress Josephine. on account of their interest in subjects from The careful depiction of costume and medieval history, particularly in its more setting (though the young Arthur’s costume poetic and intimate aspects. is an anachronism), the expression of Richard’s painting of Valentine de mingled grief and devotion, and finely Milan, shown at the bš‘õ Salon (and now painted finish, as well as its large size – in St Petersburg), depicting a young widow unusual for a picture of this kind – make mourning the death of her husband, the duc clear, as François Pupil has emphasised, d’Orléans, was inspired by the contemplation the link between this earlier generation of of their tombs in Lenoir’s museum. The Troubadour artists and the work of Paul painting itself became, in turn, a source for Delaroche. ú„ other artists. The present painting combines a debt to Richard’s painting with details derived directly from Lenoir’s museum: the tomb is a somewhat eclectic mix of identifiable sculpture, but the appearance and costume of this young widow recall, unmistakeably (as Alain Pougetoux has noted ), that of Valentine de Milan herself. 1. Pougetoux bŽŽ, p. ӏ. For further discussion, ¹ see also Chaudonneret bŽš‘, p. õŽ; Pupil bŽšÓ, Valentine’s known concern for the education p. Ž‘, Pougetoux bŽŽÓ, pp. y–Ób and Denton bŽŽš, of her young son, the future poet Charles pp. õbŽ–¸.

ôK | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹

Delaroche 9.indd 46 16/12/2009 09:41 DDelarocheelaroche 9.indd9.indd 4747 115/12/20095/12/2009 16:0716:07 d4‰´ú:œ-à‰´%: vºÓ‰ºÍ Bouton, a pupil of David, first exhibited Milan, keeps curious onlookers at a distance. ®°²ï°–°ïï{0 at the Salon in bšb‘ with a view of a This is anachronistic only if we do not [K] The Fourteenth-Century Room subterranean chapel at St Denis, a picture interpret the scene as theatre: Charles –% in the Musée des Monuments Français now untraced, but no doubt inspired was to appear and reappear as a subject, , by the destruction of the early years of not only in historical accounts (notably in bšby the Revolution, when numerous tombs Prosper de Barante’s Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne Oil on canvas, bb x b¸ cm were removed from that great church. In ) but, in a period drawn to themes Musée de Brou, Bourg-en-Bresse (Žšõ.bÓ¸) bšbõ, in a logical progression, he sent in a of madness, in the theatre and in opera too. Philosopher meditating beside the Tombs in Provenance: Acquired from Galerie Didier Aaron Bouton himself shortly aFerwards entered & Cie, Paris, bŽšõ. the Thirteenth-Century Room at the Musée des into partnership with Louis-Jacques- Petits-Augustins (this was Lenoir’s Musée des Mandé Daguerre, at this time still a theatre monuments français). He continued to take designer, to set up the Diorama, thus taking the museum as subject, and to emphasise to its logical conclusion the power of light the force of its ‘period’ evocations, sending and architecture to reconstitute the past as in bšb a View of the Fifteenth-Century Room, dramatic experience. ú„ and finally, in bšby, a year aFer the closure of the museum (and perhaps, as Marie- Claude Chaudonneret has suggested, as a final tribute to it b), the Fourteenth-Century Room. This is probably the second of two versions of this final view; the first (Musée Carnavalet, Paris) differs in representing only a single visitor taking notes. The tombs of Charles V and Jeanne de Bourbon are visible to the right, placed on a base made up of wood panelling from the Sainte Chapelle; to the leF, in a series of arches from Saint Denis, Lenoir had placed, upright, a set of formerly recumbent figures from tombs taken from Saint Denis and various Paris convents. In such a setting it is tempting to recall, with Marie-Claude Chaudonneret, the words of the historian Jules Michelet, remembering his childhood visits to the museum: ‘What was I looking for? I hardly know – the life of the time, no doubt, and the spirit of the ages. I was not altogether certain that they were not alive, all those marble sleepers.’ For Bouton, the ‘life of the time’ here takes form as the unhappy king Charles –%, subject to fits of madness, who broods at the tomb of his father, while his sister-in-law, Valentine de 1. Chaudonneret bŽšÁ, p. bÁ.

ïK | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹

Delaroche 9.indd 56 16/12/2009 09:42 DDelarocheelaroche 9.indd9.indd 5757 115/12/20095/12/2009 16:0816:08 £‰Óú L:ú‰´ºd4: ®°²í²–°ïïK0 determined to give some authenticity to the Here the drawings derived from Delaroche’s Henri vvv et sa cour [°ô] The Princes in the Tower chamber in the Tower of London where the study of , which focus (Les Enfants d’Édouard), two sons of Edward %– were imprisoned. He attention on the open window to the leF, are bšÁ‘ consulted visual documents from the period, a better guide to the dynamic interpretation Oil on canvas, bšb x õbÓ cm such as the Annunciation by Rogier van der of pictorial space that was revealed in The Musée du Louvre, Paris (Inv.ÁšÁ) Weyden in the Louvre, from which he bor- Princes in the Tower (see cat. ӑ). Provenance: acquired by the French state from the rowed the detail of the hanging medallion Delaroche chose the models for the Salon of bšÁb for ¸,‘‘‘ francs and exhibited at the on the back wall. In bšõš, he plotted his two princes from among his friends and Musée du Luxembourg; transferred to the Louvre composition with the aid of small plaster acquaintances. Reliable later testimony in bšy. figures of the two princes, which remained indicates that the younger prince was mod- in the possession of his family Á‘ years later.ì elled by the young sister of the artist Félicie In the catalogue of Delaroche’s work Throughout these preparations, however, he de Fauveau, while the brooding Edward V published aFer his death it was noted: ‘In was committed to a composition ‘en hauteur’ was Henri Delaborde, future biographer general […] Paul Delaroche began his – that is to say, taller than it was broad – as of Ingres and secretary of the Académie pictures in proportions or in forms that were in Northcote. At what must have been a late des Beaux-Arts, who was then beginning a different from their definitive forms and stage in the creation of the work, he decided period as Delaroche’s pupil and studio assis- proportions.’¹ This observation, made with to make a radical change in its proportions, tant.h Among those who praised the painting regard to his Death of Elizabeth, applies in and ‘had about ¸Ó centimetres of canvas on its appearance at the bšÁb Salon was The particular to the studies leading up to sewn on at each side’.9 Delaroche’s former master, the Baron Gros, Princes in the Tower, and the two versions The additional flanking pieces, which re- who reportedly exclaimed: ‘What expression of the picture that were painted. Delaroche main visible today, enabled him to transform in these two children! What wit! What intel- was certainly familiar with the scene from the composition. The leF-hand strip enabled ligence in the little dog who looks and listens Richard vvv Shakespeare’s that had been him to introduce the dramatic detail of the so well!’¹/ œv strikingly portrayed by Sir Joshua Reynolds’ barred door, with candle-light penetrating pupil, James Northcote, in byŽ‘, and was through a crack, and the small dog who de- reproduced in Francis Legat’s engraving for tects the approach of the assassins. There is, the Shakespeare Gallery. The recent revela- however, a dearth of preliminary studies that tion of his visit to England in bšõõ makes might trace this change of plan. Two draw- it possible that he saw the original work, ings in the Fogg Art Museum that have now and may have met its author, who specially rightly been attributed to Delaroche do not prized this evocation of ‘the murder of two help. As Louis-Antoine Prat has argued, they innocent children’.² On his subsequent visit appear to relate more closely to the second The Princes in the Tower of bšõy, one of Delaroche’s priorities was to version of , painted 1. Delaborde and Goddé bšÓš, opp. plate ¸. discover the historical context of this episode for the English collector John Naylor in 2. Bann õ‘‘¸, pp.Á¸õ–. from English history. As was later explained bšÓõ.R Yet Delaroche was clearly contem- 3. Quoted in Bann bŽŽy, p. Ž. in the Illustrated London News: ‘The costume plating a version akin to Naylor’s work as 4. His intermediary drawing is reproduced in Bann of the Princes, the bedstead, and its draper- early as bšÁb, when he produced the unique bŽŽy, p.b‘b. ies, were carved and made in England, from lithograph of the two princes on their knees 5. Delaborde and Goddé bšÓš, opp. plate b. 6. Delaborde and Goddé bšÓš. the best authorities, under the supervision of beside the bed. The Fogg drawings confirm Ý 7. Prat bŽŽy, p.y‘. See Bann õ‘‘Ó, p. Á‘ for Naylor’s Delaroche who came expressly to London to that possible variants were occurring to commission. visit the scene of his picture.’³ Delaroche at an early stage. But they do not 8. Reproduced in Bann bŽŽy, p. ŽÓ. In contrast to Northcote, who con- indicate the transformation of the work by 9. See Benoist bŽŽ, p. bÁ, and Larroumet bŽ‘, p. bõÓ. veyed little of the context, Delaroche was the addition of the little dog and the door. 10. Quoted in Bann bŽŽy, p. b‘‘.

Kô | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹

Delaroche 9.indd 64 21/12/2009 16:22 DDelarocheelaroche 9.indd9.indd 6565 115/12/20095/12/2009 16:0916:09 )´‰Íd%œ ú:G‰‰ ®°²K°–°ïÉí0, John Boydell opened his Shakespeare together with other contemporary works ‰)‰:´ é‰à:œ ͺ´‰4dº‰: Gallery in Pall Mall in byš¸, having com- from his own collection, but the engrav- ®°²ôK–°ï{°0 missioned from Thomas Banks a sculptural ings themselves were at the heart of it. The [°ï] Shakespeare Gallery: group representing Shakespeare between the engravers, indeed, were oFen paid more King Richard vvv, Act vé, Scene vvv: Dramatic Muse and the Genius of Painting than the painters, who included Sir Joshua – exactly representing his own ambition for Reynolds, Benjamin West and James Barry, The Murder of the Princes, byŽ‘ the Gallery. He was able to meet the great as well as a number of artists better known Etching and engraving on paper, Ó¸.Ó x b cm expense of his scheme from the proceeds as illustrators. The whole enterprise invited The British Museum, London (Dd.¸.õ¸*) of some thirty years of commercial success, both keen interest and criticism; Charles during which he had also succeeded in Lamb famously complained: ‘What injury „%úú%‰à œÓ:ú‰ºÍ ®°²K{–°ïôï0, establishing a British school of engravers did not Boydell’s Shakespeare Gallery ‰)‰:´ é‰à:œ ͺ´‰4dº‰: to rival the perfection of the French. It was do me with Shakespeare. To have Opie’s ®°²ôK–°ï{°0 a success based largely on commissioning Shakespeare, Northcote’s Shakespeare, [°K] Shakespeare Gallery: and selling reproductive prints; the most light-headed Fuseli’s Shakespeare, wooden- King Richard the Third, Act vé, famously successful was William Woollett’s headed West’s Shakespeare, deaf-headed engraving aFer Benjamin West’s Death Reynolds’s Shakespeare, instead of my and Scene vvv: The Burial of the Princes , of Wolfe, published in byy¸. Not only did everybody’s Shakespeare’ – perhaps not byŽÓ Boydell receive £bÓ,‘‘‘ for it, over bÓ years, unlike the response to the film of a favourite but he also established, with this celebrated book. However, it was not criticism of this Etching and engraving on paper, Ó¸.Ó x b. cm The British Museum, London (Ee.õ.bÓb) print, a precedent for the representation kind, but the war with France which led to in the grand manner of a recent historical the ultimate failure of the gallery, ending in %œ‰‰d ‰‰¹úº´ ®°²{É–°ïɲ0, event.¹ Boydell’s near-bankruptcy in bš‘. ‰)‰:´ ‰4ºà‰œ œ‰º‰4‰´L Preliminary discussions for the The last quarter of the eighteenth cen- ®°²ïï–°ï{ô0 Shakespeare Gallery began at a dinner party tury saw the rise of a marked enthusiasm for [°²] Shakespeare Gallery: in Hampstead, at the home of his nephew, Shakespeare, stemming in part from the act- Henry évvv, Act v, Scene vé: Henry Josiah Boydell, who was later to become a ing of Mrs Siddons and David Garrick, and business partner. At home in Cheapside, stimulated by Garrick’s Shakespeare Jubilee évvv leading Anne Boleyn to the Dance, among Boydell’s own pictures, hung James at Stratford in by¸Ž. Various illustrated edi- byŽš Northcote’s The Murder of the Princes in the tions appeared, as well as books of plates. Tower, from Richard vvv. Northcote later Boydell’s, however, was on a different scale, Etching and engraving on paper, ӑ. x ¸Á.Ó cm Preface The British Museum, London (Dd.¸.õy) claimed this as the origin of the scheme, as he describes it in his : it was for art- though other artists, including Romney and ists ‘to carry into execution an undertaking, ‰4ºà‰œ ´¹L:´ ®°²ôK–°ï°É0, Fuseli, also claimed to have thought of the where the national honour, the advancement ‰)‰:´ ‰4ºà‰œ œ‰º‰4‰´L idea (Fuseli while lying on his back looking of the Arts, and their own advantage, are ®°²ïï–°ï{ô0 at the Sistine Chapel ceiling). equally concerned’. °ï °K [°ï] Shakespeare Gallery: The essence of the scheme was the Though some of the artists involved Othello, Act vv, Scene v: The Meeting of publication of a series of large plates illus- occasionally used actors to model the prin- trating the plays of Shakespeare, and a cipal parts, the compositions themselves Othello and Desdemona, byŽŽ smaller series planned to accompany an were not based on theatrical performance; Stipple engraving on paper, Ž.š x ¸Á cm edition of the plays; some two hundred many, indeed, are set in landscapes of a kind The British Museum, London (bŽyy.Ó.yÁŽ) prints in all. Boydell commissioned the almost impossible to present in a theatre. paintings from which these were made; Not surprisingly, perhaps, for a scheme they hung in the Shakespeare Gallery, aiming at ‘the advancement of the Arts’, and

KK | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹

Delaroche 9.indd 66 16/12/2009 09:42 Delaroche 9.indd 67 21/12/2009 16:23 £‰Óú L:ú‰´ºd4: ®°²í²–°ïïK0 Yet the fact that the work was com- reproduction found an honoured place in the Cromwell and Charles v missioned by the state before the July nascent collection of the city of Hamburg. [A{] Cromwell (Cromwell découvrant le cercueil de Revolution indicates that Delaroche could was also recreated as an authorised not have anticipated this fortuitous timing. full-scale replica by Delaroche’s favoured ex- Charles ver), bšÁb It was later claimed that the decision to pupil Charles Jalabert, which was exhibited Oil on canvas, õÁ‘ x Á‘‘ cm send the painting to Nîmes could be traced at the Royal Academy in London in bšÓ‘. Fonds national d’art contemporain (Cnap), Ministère to the Duchesse de Berry, mother of the Towards the end of his life, Delaroche de la culture et de la communication, Paris, Fnac £)4 Bourbon heir to the throne, who had earlier looked back on the work as a touchstone of – õš‘Á. On long-term loan to the Musée des Beaux- Saint Vincent de Paul acquired his (cat. b‘).² the new approach that he had brought to Arts, Nîmes. But by bšÁb the Duchesse de Berry was in the rendering of historical subjects. ‘At the Provenance: bšÁ‘, state commission (Ó,‘‘‘ francs), exile, and it is more likely that the destina- time of my Cromwell,’ he claimed, ‘people allocated to the Nîmes museum in bšÁ. tion of the work was secured by Guizot, who reproached me for making it too true, and held high office in the new government of now this figure has become the type for Cromwell and Charles v Delaroche’s arrived Louis-Philippe.³ Guizot was born in Nîmes, anyone wishing to represent him, either in late at the bšÁb Salon, where his Princes in and would have been mindful of the extreme the theatre, or in sculpture, even in England, the Tower big hypocrite was already on exhibition. As suffering of the city during the Revolution. where they are proud of this .’ì the critic Horace de Viel-Castel observed, Once it was hung in the city museum (then By this time, the painterly qualities of the work ‘took the attention of the public lodged in the Roman temple known as Cromwell were also appreciated. Charles straight away, [and they] were silent for the Maison Carrée), the citizens of Nîmes Blanc wrote that ‘to find a costume drawn hours on end, astonished by the deep and became deeply attached to the work. They with more facility, better modelled in its melancholy ideas that this painting awak- refused to permit it to make the journey to surfaces, better detailed in its folds, in fact ened in them’.¹ The scene showed Oliver Paris for the Delaroche retrospective in bšÓy. rendered with a brush that is freer, more Cromwell viewing the body of Charles %, If Cromwell held a special message for flexible and at the same time firmer, one King of England, aFer his execution by the French and for the Nîmois in particular, must go back as far as Van Dyck’.9 œv order of the Parliament on Á‘ January b¸Ž. it was also the painting that established But it struck home in France as providing Delaroche’s reputation in Europe as a a directly contemporary lesson. French whole. The German poet Heinrich Heine writers like Châteaubriand and the historian wrote a lengthy criticism in which he hailed François Guizot accustomed the French the artist as the ‘choir-leader’ of the new public to thinking of the English Civil War French school of historical painting, and as a forerunner of their own Revolution. memorably characterised the depiction Here was a powerful visual symbol that of Cromwell: ‘There he stands, a form as exposed the historical predicament in which firm as earth, “brutal as fact”, powerful the French nation was still involved, less without pathos, naturally supernatural, than a year aFer the July Revolution of bšÁ‘ marvellously commonplace, outlawed and had forced the exile of the elder branch yet famous, beholding his work almost like 1. Viel-Castel bšÁb, p. õ¸Ž. of the Bourbon dynasty. As Viel-Castel a woodman who has just felled an oak.’ exclaimed: ‘It is at a period like our own, in Delaroche responded to this general acclaim 2. Gillet bŽÁ, p.õÓy. Cromwell a century when the destinies of kings have by arranging for the young printmaker Louis 3. Guizot owned a drawing for , with a personal dedication by Delaroche, which is now in the been found to weigh little in the scales of the Henriquel-Dupont to engrave an aquatint, Musée Tavet-Delacour, Pontoise. great interests of the people that the picture which was shown at the bšÁÁ Salon. Even 4. Heine (no date), p. šb. of Cromwell arrives, and strikes us with all the reduced version of the work which 5. Quoted in Bann bŽŽy, pp.b‘¸–y. its high morality.’ Delaroche painted as an aid to Henriquel’s 6. Quoted in Nantes and Montpellier bŽŽŽ, p. õšŽ.

²ô | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹

Delaroche 9.indd 75 21/12/2009 10:51 Delaroche 9.indd 74 21/12/2009 16:28 £‰Óú L:ú‰´ºd4: ®°²í²–°ïïK0 Clouet’s full-length portrait of the French omitting the dagger that he half-draws [Aí] Study after François Clouet king Charles %Ì (Musée du Louvre, Paris) impulsively in Act I, Scene Ž (see cat. ÁÁ). (about #j#'–#j<²), Portrait of could have been made in the process of A version of the striking plumed hat, which collecting details of period dress for the does not feature in Alexandre Lacauchie’s Charles vÂ, bšÁ‘s first production of Meyerbeer’s opera later costume prints of the Duke of York Les Huguenots Graphite on paper, bb x š.Ó cm in bšÁ¸. Charles %Ì was the (cats. ÁÁ, Á), does, in fact, make its appear- Private collection monarch in whose reign the slaughter of ance in Maleuvre’s contemporary print of Galerie théâtrale Provenance: formerly Delaroche-Vernet Collection. the Huguenots known as the Massacre of the costume for Martinet’s . Boy in Costume relating to Saint Bartholomew’s Day took place in bÓyõ. Though debatable as an authentic period [{É] Delaroche’s interest in being associated with feature, this can be related to the fashion Younger Prince in the play Les Enfants this opera is easy to understand, given his for plumed hats that developed aFer their d’Edouard, about bšÁõ view that post-revolutionary France was still spectacular display on the heralds assisting suffering from the long-term effects of that at the Coronation of Charles Ì in bšõy. Graphite with body colour on paper, õš.¸ x õÁ cm ³ Collections de la Comédie-Française, Paris (àd. divisive outbreak of religious intolerance. This drawing is clearly not a conventional :Í).bšÁÁ [Hb Bis]) But once again there appears to be no con- costume design, but a posed portrait in Provenance: design for a Comédie-Française vincing visual evidence of his involvement. costume, possibly involving the young production This is partly a consequence of the types Delaborde, who had already modelled the of visual documentation that have survived. elder prince for Delaroche’s painting. The Theatre costumes were put on record aFer quality and style of the drawing suggest Of Delaroche’s interest in the theatre, espe- the event in print collections such as the that it was sketched by Delaroche himself. cially in the period from bšõŽ onwards, there Galerie dramatique of Martinet (cat. ÓÓ). In Presumably it was passed on to the theatre can be no doubt. It is oFen asserted that he the case of the Comédie-Française, there for reference in the devising of Anaïs’s first designed costumes for the theatre and the are also surviving sets of the actual designs costume. œv opera during this period. But Alexandre used for the production of costumes. Indeed Dumas fails to confirm the tradition that Delavigne’s Les Enfants d’Edouard is one of Delaroche was involved in the costumes the first plays for which such an extensive for Dumas’s play Henri vvv et sa cour (bšõŽ), visual record – accompanied by a contem- although there is clear evidence that he drew porary inventory of the costumes – remains upon the last act for his own compositional extant. But the set of costume studies in studies (cat. ӑ). Dumas does, however, question is not from Delaroche’s own hand. assert that Delaroche was the designer for By this time, he was delegating duties to Casimir Delavigne’s Marino Faliero later in pupils. Gustave Larroumet explicitly states: the same year, and pokes fun at the rumour ‘In Delaroche’s studio, the pupil most fond that he tried to ‘get the movement of the of the theatre and the most knowledgeable 29 wind’ into his costumes.¹ Though there is about history [was] Henri Delaborde. It every possibility that Delaroche did col- [was] he who, under the master’s direction, laborate with his friend Delavigne, the prints designed the costumes for [Delavigne’s] Louis Âv Enfants d’Edouard 1. Dumas bŽ¸¸, pp.b‘y–š. depicting the costumes do not disclose and the .’² 2. Larroumet bŽ‘, p. bõ¸. whether he realised this ambition! In this context, Olivia Voisin’s discovery 3. See the reference to the fashion in Hugo õ‘‘Ž, Delaroche did undoubtedly make auto- of a drawing in the dossier of Les Enfants vol.õ, p. šŽ. Such plumed hats can be seen in Lami’s graph sketches aFer historic portraits, d’Édouard is significant. It relates broadly lithographs of several of the participants in the Duchesse de Berry’s Ball (bšõŽ). A portrait of an and these might have served for costume to the costume that Richard, Duke of York unnamed woman, signed and dated by Delaroche in designs. His rapid study aFer François wears in the early acts of the play, not bšõŽ, features another fine example. 30

ïA | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹

Delaroche 9.indd 82 16/12/2009 09:43 DDelarocheelaroche 9.indd9.indd 8383 115/12/20095/12/2009 16:1116:11 ´%d4‰´L £‰´Ó:œ vºÍ%ÍG‰ºÍ There is a lithograph with a similar ®°ïÉA–°ïAï0 composition in Bonington’s album Cahier de Amy Robsart and the Earl of six sujets, published in bšõ¸. Like the composi- [{í] Quentin Durward Leicester tion of , therefore, this work , about bšõy has some affinities with the picturesque Oil on canvas, ÁÓ x õy cm imagery circulating within print albums in Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (WA bŽÁÁ.Á) the bšõ‘s; Nodier’s publication, the Voyages pittoresques Provenance: Alexander Hamilton Douglas, b‘:Ò (see cats. y–Ž) was a magisterial Duke of Hamilton, and by descent to the Beckford version of such an enterprise. The costumes collection; sold Christie’s, London, ¸ November bŽbŽ, here look French rather than English; lot b‘Ž (as The Declaration); bought by Colnaghi; sold Christie’s, London, Áb July bŽõÓ, lot Áb; bought by Bonington, like Delaroche (cat. ), made Gooden & Fox (for Mrs W.F.R. Weldon); presented by sketches aFer Clouet’s Henri vv, and his Charles v Mrs W.F.R. Weldon in bŽÁÁ. , both in the Louvre,¹ and appar- ently made use of Charles %Ì for the figure of The picture received its present title only in Leicester. In bšõy Delacroix began to design bŽÁy, but may represent, as then suggested, the costumes for Victor Hugo’s Amy Robsart the scene from Sir Walter Scott’s novel (it opened in bšõš, but ran for only one night). Kenilworth in which Amy Robsart urges her The present painting is not dated, but since husband Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, to Bonington and Delacroix were close friends, end the secrecy surrounding their marriage, and as it is probable that it dates from the a secrecy which he, as a favourite of Queen same period, we may suppose that they Elizabeth, wishes to maintain. The scene discussed together the scenes of the play. As may relate to a moment at the beginning of Patrick Noon has observed, Bonington has Chapter y describing the arrival of Leicester drawn on several antiquarian sources for on one of his occasional visits to Amy details of costume, in addition to his studies Robsart at Cumnor: aFer Clouet, showing the same concern for Meanwhile the Earl, for he was of no inferior authentic period costume which character- rank, returned his lady’s caresses with the most ised theatrical productions in the late bšõ‘s² affectionate ardour but affected to resist when and, indeed, the preparation of costumes she strove to take his cloak from him. for the Quadrille de Marie Stuart (cat. Áš). “Nay”, she said “but I will unmantle you. I As Henri Duponchel commented, the most must see if you have kept your word to me, and historically accurate of all the costumes at 1. Illustrated in Nottingham õ‘‘õ, p. ¸Ž, no. bbb. come as the great Earl men call thee, and not as the Duchesse de Berry’s ball was that worn by Both are reduced versions, painted in the studio of heretofore like a private cavalier.” the Duc de Richelieu; describing the sumptu- François Clouet. The original life-size portrait of Henry %% is in the Palazzo Pitti, in Florence, and that Scott lays particular emphasis, in the ous details, he wrote ‘comme on en peut voir of Charles %Ì in Vienna. course of the novel, on the richness of Amy’s dans le portrait de Charles %Ì par Clouet’.³ 2. Mr Michael Venator has brought two related im- dress and the dazzling brilliance of her Though Bonington’s picture recalls certain ages to my attention: a lithograph by Fontenay from this period, showing an actor in a costume which ex- apartments at Cumnor; the kind of bril- features of ‘Troubadour’ painting, and shows actly recalls the Clouet portrait, as sketched by both liance Bonington took particular delight in a concern for the details of period costume, Delaroche and Bonington,and a figure in a water- evoking in paint, as he does here. For Amy it also derives much from the artists he and colour by Delacroix in the Louvre (´) b‘¸ÁŽ), which closely resembles the others, and may represent a Robsart, however, it served only to heighten Delacroix both admired – Rubens, Titian and character from Meyerbeer’s Les Huguenots, for which the irony of her permanent isolation from Watteau – and from what Delacroix called Delaroche may have designed costumes. the court. ‘the aFernoon light of Veronese’. ú„ 3. Duponchel °ïAí, pp.õŽ–ӑ.

íA | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹

Delaroche 9.indd 92 22/12/2009 16:09 DDelarocheelaroche 9.indd9.indd 9393 115/12/20095/12/2009 16:1216:12 £‰Óú L:ú‰´ºd4: ®°²í²–°ïïK0 Marie-Antoinette ‘ years earlier, the story description of the scene taken from the Martyrologe des Protestans [ï{] The Execution of of Lady Jane Grey’s fate carried real histori- , dated bӚš. Lady Jane Grey cal significance. A preparatory drawing for The story of Lady Jane Grey had been , bšÁÁ the painting (cat. ¸¸) includes a vignette recounted in historical literature, with ac- Oil on canvas, double-lined, õÓb x Á‘õ cm for a different, subsequently abandoned counts of her life in all histories of England. The National Gallery, London (ÍGbŽ‘Ž) composition clearly annotated ‘La Dauphine In France, Madame de Staël had turned the Signed and dated lower right: Paul DelaRoche / bšÁÁ. et L[ouis] by au temple’. The juxtaposition Nine Days’ Queen’s life into drama with her l’›Â›·éËvòL ’› / lؒ 9ØL› Frame inscription: Literary Žð› / ›L lØ Ëòé𠒛 / lòL’ð›ò l’ØL #jjS’ of the two scenes on the same sheet supports eponymous play,³ and N.H. Nicholas’s the parallel between the fate of Lady Jane Remains of Lady Jane Grey had just been trans- Provenance: bšÁÁ, bought by Count Anatole Demidoff (bšbõ/bÁ–bšy‘) for )) š,‘‘‘;  March bšy‘, Grey and that of the French royal family lated into French.⁴ Delaroche’s factual sourc- sold at Demidoff sale to John Heugh; õ April bšy, condemned to the guillotine. An oFen-drawn es for the painting may have been influenced Christie’s, bought by Agnew’s; bb July bšy, bought analogy between the French and English by such literary reminiscences, but historical by A.G. Kurz; Kurz sale, Ž–bb May bšŽb, Christie’s, bought Agnew’s; sold to the bst Lord Cheylesmore, y revolutions had revived an interest in lesser- accuracy was his main goal. He could have May bšŽõ, No. yš; bequeathed to the National Gallery, known English historical figures. The bur- opted for a romanticised version of Lady Jane b¸ December bŽ‘õ, by the õnd Lord Cheylesmore; geoning Anglomania of the time resulted in Grey’s last moments as the foundation for transferred to the Tate Gallery (then National Gallery, Millbank), bš December bŽ‘õ; bŽõš, damaged an appetite for paintings of ill-fated English his painting, but instead, for the sake of ac- in the Thames flood; bŽÓš, declared a total loss¹; bŽyÁ, royalty. Louis ̖%% of France and Edward – curacy, favoured a sixteenth-century account rediscovered at Tate and transferred to the National of England were innocent child victims who of the execution, then believed as historically Gallery, London. died because of political circumstances; so reliable, however dry and obscure.⁵ was Lady Jane Grey. Delaroche’s historical reconstitutions This huge but finely wrought painting is one As Stephen Bann suggests (cat. ¸¸), had to be plausible, and the making of his of the best examples of the historical dramas Delaroche may not have initially planned paintings was preceded by extensive research. that made Delaroche more popular in his to represent Lady Jane Grey, but probably Endowed with a curious mind and an aware- lifetime than his contemporaries Ingres or toyed with the idea of depicting another ness of visual culture, he had amassed a Delacroix. The Execution of Lady Jane Grey doomed English royal. Jane Grey was hardly lot of material which he was able to form shows the young great-granddaughter of a newcomer to the Salon; there were at least and synthesise. The study of Lady Jane Grey Henry –%%, who, following the death of four occurrences of the subject in the two reveals that Delaroche’s visual repertoire Edward –% in bÓÓÁ, reigned for nine days decades preceding Delaroche’s showing for the painting was varied; a compromise as queen. Deposed by the supporters of in bšÁ.² Yet her story, arguably still little- between various English sources, Troubadour the Catholic Queen Mary, she was tried known in France, was only familiar to the formulae (see p. õ¸), and motifs from both for treason and beheaded at Tower Hill on cognoscenti, and the subject may not have religious art and Davidian painting. These bõ February bÓӏ. been popular with the public. To allow view- were acquired through visiting galleries and Delaroche shows the instant when the ers a full grasp of the painting, Delaroche exhibitions or siFing through publications or victim, blindfolded and stripped to her ensured the facts were set out in the Salon print portfolios. Delaroche came to London petticoat, is guided to the block by Sir John livret with a few lines of explanation: ‘Jane in bšõy ‘expressly to visit the scene of his Brydges, Lieutenant of the Tower. Overcome Grey, whom Edward –% had, through his picture’⁶ of the young princes, and researched with emotion, two of her ladies-in-waiting will, appointed heir to the English throne, details of the Tower which could have been lean against a pillar to the leF. The execu- was, aFer a nine-days long reign, impris- used for cat. ÓÁ.⁷ He probably would have tioner stands aside with rope and dagger, oned by order of her cousin Mary, who, six encountered Charles Robert Leslie’s Lady resting on the handle of his axe; at the back, months later, had her beheaded. Jane Grey Jane Grey prevailed on to Accept the Crown, then the tips of guards’ halberds can just be seen was executed deep in the Tower of London, on display;⁸ the young queen’s dazzling white beyond the black scaffold. aged seventeen, on bõ February bÓӏ.’ This dress and delicate hand gesture may have With its echoes of the death of Queen background information precedes a vivid stayed in his memory.

°ÉA | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹

Delaroche 9.indd 102 13/01/2010 09:22 Delaroche 9.indd 103 16/12/2009 09:35 £‰Óú L:ú‰´ºd4: ®°²í²–°ïïK0 On š January bšÁ¸, the Duke of Sutherland make distinctively his own. The execution [ïô] Strafford on his Way to wrote to his mother: ‘We saw on Monday of the main counsellor of Charles % in b¸b Execution, one of the finest modern pictures I ever was familiar to the many French readers bšÁÓ saw – it is by P. de la Roche [sic] and who had studied the history of the Stuart Oil on canvas, õŽ x Áb‘ cm the subject is Ld. Strafford Going to His dynasty. But the striking reference to Private collection Execution – he says that the picture he has Strafford’s unjust fate in Alfred de Vigny’s Provenance: bought by the Duke of Sutherland and to do for F[rancis] of K. Charles % will be novel Cinq-Mars (where Delaroche found the his brother Lord Francis Egerton from the artist; as good.’ The purchase of these two major material for his Richelieu of bšõŽ) might also bought by John Francis Queeny of St Louis, Missouri ¹ works by the two brothers who owned the have resonated in his mind. from the Duke of Sutherland’s sale in bŽbÁ; private The Princes in the Tower collection. finest private collection of paintings in As with , Britain at the time was a significant step in Delaroche made a maquette for the work, ‰d4%úú: à‰´‰%Í:‰ ®°ïÉK–°ï²²0, establishing Delaroche’s reputation beyond which is now lost. The ‘watercolour sketch’ ‰)‰:´ £‰Óú L:ú‰´ºd4: France. Evidently Charles v was little more mentioned by Goddé could well be the study ®°²í²–°ïïK0 than a promissory note by this date, though now in a private collection.ì Goddé reveals [ïï] Charles v insulted by the Soldiers Lord Francis Egerton had been sufficiently that the soldier at the extreme right, who is of Cromwell impressed by Delaroche’s assurances to re- not present in this sketch, was modelled by , bšõ serve it in advance. He may well have seen a General Pierre Boyer (byyõ–bšÓb), a veteran Engraving on paper, Á x ÓÁ.õ cm preliminary sketch, in which the broad lines of Napoleon’s army who was currently Private collection Strafford Inspecteur général of the composition are established.² - of the French gendarmerie on his Way to Execution, however, was already and an amateur painter. Aside from this on show in the studio. Though no indication contemporary link, Delaroche remained of ownership was given when the two works mindful of his sources in English historical were exhibited at the bšÁy Salon, it may be prints. James Northcote’s Tower of London, assumed that by then both were destined for engraved by William Skelton, had shown the Sutherland family. the bodies of the two Princes in the Tower The genesis of Strafford reflects being conveyed down a flight of steps (p. ¸y, Delaroche’s long-standing interest in the cat. b¸). Delaroche would have had this in personal dramas of some of the unfortunate mind when he sketched a possible sequel to victims of early modern English history. The Execution of Lady Jane Grey in which the But it also reveals the greater freedom for coffin of the young woman is brought down his talents when he became Professor and the stairs of the Tower, with the Lieutenant Strafford master of a studio at the Ecole des Beaux- leading the procession.9 In , the Arts late in bšÁÁ. Jules Goddé notes that ‘this sense of arrested downward movement gives picture was completely sketched out in bšÁ the bowed figure of the victim an added by M. Henri Delaborde, aFer a watercolour poignancy. The blessing of Archbishop sketch that belonged to M. le vicomte de la Laud, Strafford’s fellow prisoner in the Villestreux, and a wax maquette executed Tower, is delivered through an iron grille, by Paul Delaroche, who only took the pic- a motif that Delaroche has converted from ture up again in the summer of bšÁÓ, on Victor Schnetz’s Farewell of Consul Boethius to his family his return from Italy’.³ Having finished , shown at the Salon of bšõy (Musée The Execution of Lady Jane Grey by the end des Augustins, Toulouse). of bšÁÁ, Delaroche had turned to another The degree to which Delaroche’s deci- English historical subject which he would sion to embark on Charles v was influenced ïô

°°A | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹

Delaroche 9.indd 112 16/12/2009 09:44 Delaroche 9.indd 113 05/01/2010 11:30 by the interest of Lord Francis Egerton a similar opposition, and Marie-Antoinette Aware of the disasters that could is hard to assess. He may well have had before the Tribunal (cat. ӎ) offers a late overcome unique paintings, Delaroche preliminary drawings to show his future example. Among contemporary critics, took great care to secure fine engravings Strafford Charles patron, since one is still held by the Louvre.R Heinrich Heine was not alone in noting that of his work. For both and Linda Whiteley has found that, before bšÁ‘, the composition resembled a tavern scene v, he reserved his reproduction rights. The there was a drawing in the collection of in the manner of Jan Steen, though (in his meticulous print by future academician Louis-Auguste Coutan. While the centred judgement) Delaroche had not lived up to Achille Martinet was published in bšõ by his composition is a departure from the dy- the aspiration to be a ‘graceful and elegant dealer Goupil. œv Strafford namic cross-movement of , it recalls Dutchman’.Ý The painting hung for many the poignant contrast between an impas- years in the dining room of Bridgewater sive victim and an aggressive crowd that House, but has not been visible since Delaroche had explored in Death of President undergoing bomb damage in the Second Duranti (bšõy, now destroyed). His vignette World War (see p. õõ). Its present restora- of Joan of Arc, engraved by Thompson for tion promises to bring back into public view the illustrated edition of Barante’s Histoire the last of Delaroche’s major paintings on des Ducs de Bourgogne (bšÁy), depends on English historical themes.

1. Quoted in Ward-Jackson bŽšÓ, p. by. 2. Musée du Louvre, Département des Arts Graphiques (´) Áӑ¸y). 3. Delaborde and Goddé bšÓš, plate bŽ. 4. See Bann bŽŽy, pp.b¸–y. Vigny pictures Richelieu hearing of the death of Strafford and musing on the inequity with which selfless service to an absolute monarch is rewarded. 5. Illustrated in Bann bŽŽy, p. bš. 6. Musée du Louvre, Département des Arts Graphiques (´) ÁÓbÁ¸). 7. Musée du Louvre, Département des Arts Graphiques(´) Áӑ¸y). 8. Quoted in Bann bŽŽy, p. bÓõ. ïï

°°ô | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹ £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹ | °°ï

Delaroche 9.indd 114 06/01/2010 09:30 Delaroche 9.indd 115 05/01/2010 11:27 £‰Óú L:ú‰´ºd4: ®°²í²–°ïïK0 anonymous martyr from ‘the time of [the small versions of Delaroche’s major paintings [KÉ] Young Christian Martyr Roman Emperor] Diocletian’³ is minutely that had previously leF his studio. The size (La Jeune Martyre) described in a contemporary article. The and the quality of the Louvre work imply , bšÓ–Ó picture was inspired by ‘a kind of dream’, that, though unsigned, Delaroche considered Oil on canvas, by‘.Ó x bš cm which came to the artist while he was suf- it as the definitive version. Its appearance in a Musée du Louvre, Paris (´) b‘Áš) fering from severe fever in December bšÓÁ. prominent position in Louis Roux’s retrospec- Provenance: Bought by Adolphe Goupil (bÓ,‘‘‘ In a letter of January bšÓ, he pronounced tive painting of the studio (bšÓš) supports this francs) for reproduction, bšÓÓ; sold to Baron Adolphe himself well enough to start sketching the inference (fig. ÁÓ, p. bÓ¸). d’Eichtal (Á¸,‘‘‘ francs), bšÓy; given to the Louvre motif, first in a charcoal study, and then This recognition affects the status of the by the three children of d’Eichtal in memory of their Young Martyr father, bšŽÓ. on a ‘small white canvas’. This invaluable other existing versions of the . letter expands on Delaroche’s conception of There is no difficulty in authenticating the the theme. The young Roman woman, who work ‘begun by Delaroche but completed The largest painting produced by Delaroche refused to sacrifice to the ‘false gods’, has by [Charles] Jalabert’ in the Walters Art during his final years, the Young Christian been condemned to death and cast into the Museum, Baltimore. Jalabert was one of Martyr is also a summation of the theme of Tiber with her hands bound. ‘[T]he sun has Delaroche’s most faithful pupils, and oFen female victimhood that was broached in The set behind the sombre and bare banks of the worked in his studios at Paris and Nice. Execution of Lady Jane Grey. The drawings river; two Christians, who are going silently Moreover the Goupil account books record from the story of Saint Perpetua (see fig. bš, on their way, notice the corpse of the young its sale in bš¸š.R But the fine version in the p. ) indicate that he gave consideration martyr which passes in front of them, car- Hermitage poses a problem. Evidently both to the legends of the early Roman martyrs, ried by the waters.’ì signed and dated, it cannot date from bšÓÁ, as probably on his visit to Rome in bšÁ–. A This may well be the fullest commentary previously recorded.Ý There can be no reason more contemporary source for the memo- on the genesis and theme of a painting that to reject Delaroche’s own clear account of rable composition might be John Everett Delaroche ever wrote. Yet a comparison of the work having been begun early in bšÓ. Millais’s Ophelia, which was shown at the the different extant versions of the work Measuring yÁ.Ó x ¸‘ cm, the Hermitage ver- Royal Academy in bšÓõ and travelled to the reveals a number of problems in following sion is larger than the ‘first thought’ canvas Paris Exposition Universelle in bšÓÓ. But its gestation. The initial charcoal study has (ÁÁ x õÓ cm) and the Eichens engraving Elisabeth Foucart-Walter is right in ques- probably disappeared, though there are (¸Ó.õ x ÓÁ cm), but less than half the size of tioning the usefulness of this comparison.¹ several related pencil studies, mostly for the the Louvre version. It does not appear to For the contemporary critic Théophile figure with bound hands, in the Louvre col- have passed through Goupil’s books. If we Gautier, the work came as little less than a lection (´) Ášbb, Ášbõ, ÁšbÁ, Ášby, ÁšbŽ). are to trust the autograph, it might have been revelation. AFer seeing this ‘last painting Delaroche’s ‘small canvas’, probably the painted to give to a friend in bšÓ/Ó. œv of Paul Delaroche’ in the Goupil Gallery painting sold in bšÓy as the ‘first thought’ of early in bšÓy, he made ample amends for the the composition, cannot be traced either. 9 1. Foucart-Walter in Nantes and Montpellier bŽŽŽ, scathing comments he had made on early However, the painting in the Louvre is with- pp.Áõ¸–y. Lady Jane Grey works such as the some out any doubt the work seen by Gautier in 2. Gautier bšÓy, p. b¸. twenty years before. Praising the ‘tender, bšÓy, before it was sold to Baron d’Eichtal. A 3. As described in Paris bšÓyb, p. Á. vaporous, hazy’ effect, reminiscent of the note in the sale catalogue of June bšÓy con- 4. Ulbach bšÓy, p. Á¸š. Italian Renaissance painter Correggio, he firms that Goupil owned it, and reserved the 5. Ulbach bšÓy, p. Á¸Ž. concluded: ‘If [Delaroche] could count eight rights of reproduction. The steel engraving, 6. Paris bšÓyb, p. Ó. or ten figures like that one in his work, [he] by Herman Eichens, duly appeared in bš¸b. 7. Getty Research Institute, Goupil Áõyb, Book , p. Óõ, row Ž. would [have] nothing to fear from the com- Nonetheless, a work on such a scale was cer- 8. See Ziff bŽyy, p. Á‘õ. A close inspection of the date petition of the greatest masters.’² tainly not painted for the exclusive purpose on the painting in fact reveals that the last digit is How Delaroche came to paint this of being reproduced, as were several of the difficult to interpret.

°Aô | £‰%͉%ÍG 4%œ‰º´¹

Delaroche 9.indd 124 16/12/2009 09:45 DDelarocheelaroche 9.indd9.indd 125125 115/12/20095/12/2009 16:1616:16 artist and the dynasty of English architects to which Matthew belonged, Delaroche would surely have recognised the rich Tudor connotations of the name Wyatt. The poet Sir Thomas Wyatt was imprisoned in the Tower under suspicion of being the lover of Anne Boleyn, and his sister Anne Wyatt was the lady-in-waiting who accompanied the unfortunate victim to the scaffold, and received her last confidences. Delaroche clearly wanted the most prominent of his grieving attendants to be finely character- ised, with her upturned face entirely visible. It is tempting to imagine that Miss Wyatt did respond to the letter, since her name fitted the bill to perfection. At any rate, the remaining studies involv- 69 70 ing the executioner and the grieving ladies decision could well have been associated apartment, with ‘Charles Guyot’ possibly been snapped up by Count Demidoff for the (cats. 71, 72) did not require the presence of with his first prolonged meetings with Mlle modelling the role of the Lieutenant of the enormous sum of 20,000 francs.5 Mlle Anaïs; they would have been completed Anaïs, when she posed for her portrait as a Tower. If this is so, cats. 68, 69 and 70 can An intriguing footnote to this schedule at Delaroche’s studio in the rue des Marais St fashionable young actress. It is likely that all be related to this stage. Cats. 69, though exists in the form of another letter, which Germain. The lady-in-waiting with her face these sittings took place in the latter months very similar to 68, has been squared up to was briefly summarised in a late nineteenth- to the wall is clearly foreshadowed in cat. of 1832, since this period coincided with her facilitate transfer of the motif to the larger century catalogue of autographs, and which, 66. But the detailed sketch of the lady with elevation to a new status as a sociétaire of scale of the painting. Cat. 70 is involved in view of the preceding testimony, must upturned face in cat. 71 may date back to a the Comédie-Française. Cat. 67 suggests with the tricky foreshortening of Jane’s surely have been assigned to the wrong year. sitting with the daughter of Mme Wyatt. It that she then agreed to pose for the figure of outstretched arms. According to this source, Delaroche wrote suggests some acquaintance with Tudor cos- Jane in a dress of sixteenth-century French To complete this timetable, there is une- on 22 June 1832 to ‘Madame Wyatt’ that ‘the tume, though for Jane Grey’s precise period style. The tiny Baltimore drawing (fig. 17) quivocal evidence that The Execution of Lady presence of her daughter [was] indispensa- it is anachronistic. The distinctive head-dress that features the same period dress captures Jane Grey was expected to appear at the ble for him to complete his picture of Jane might derive from a print a˜er Holbein’s ren- a moment of repose for the sitter, which 1833 Salon, which opened on 1 March. The Grey’.6 If we assume that the date was in dering of the daughters of Sir Thomas More, the artist has instilled with his own sense of critic Théophile Gautier, writing in the same fact 1833, the implications of the message are and so would belong a generation earlier. intimacy. month, went so far as to accuse him of ‘co- fascinating. It is possible that Delaroche’s The striking outfit of the executioner as it The two letters despatched by Delaroche quettishness with his Jane Grey so lauded in correspondent was the ‘Mme Wyatt, née de appears in the final painting allies Italianate to Anaïs (cat. 75) relate to a further impor- advance’.4 Gautier was, however, expecting Vivefay’ who exhibited at the 1831 Salon, and features (such as the red tights) with genu- tant phase in the composition. The shorter Delaroche to repeat his old trick of arriving that the daughter mentioned was the future ine period features such as the jaunty cap. of the two dates from the run of the play, Les late at the exhibition, and exciting popular artist Emma-Cornélie Wyatt de Vivefay The large sheet of variant drawings for this Enfants d’Édouard, which opened on 18 May demand, as had been the case with Cromwell who became a well-known copyist under the crucial figure (cat. 72) shows that a live male 1833. The longer and more explicit letter in 1831. A further notice in a contemporary Second Empire. Delaroche’s acquaintance model was introduced, a˜er the grosser, could well relate to the earlier months of journal, dated 23 June, can only have re- with the English artist Matthew Cotes Wyatt 71 sword-bearing figure of the Whitworth study 1833, since there is a reference to Anaïs’s fire- kindled the suspense by revealing that the is attested by the 1822 entry in the Meyrick had been discarded. Delaroche took great side. It is argued elsewhere (p. 42) that this painting was being ‘finished at this moment’ Visitors Book (cat. 11). But even if there is pains to define the meditative pose from letter was sent to arrange a sitting in Anaïs’s – too late for the Salon – but had supposedly no direct link between the French-born lady which he contemplates his task.

132 | PAINTING HISTORY PAINTING HISTORY | 133

DDelarocheelaroche 9.indd9.indd 132132 115/12/20095/12/2009 16:1716:17 DDelarocheelaroche 9.indd9.indd 133133 115/12/20095/12/2009 16:1716:17