« AnteriorContinuar »
if so, it must be taken as a merely ideal portrait, a view which receives corroboration in its unlikeness to any of Oliver’s pictures which have come down to us. In strictness, therefore, this bust ought to find no place amongst the illustrations to the present work; but, as it is possible that something may be said in opposition to my argument, it seems desirable to give any of my readers who have not seen the original the opportunity of judging for themselves of the general appearance of this work of art.
3. The Drawing by Samuel Cooper in the Duke of Dev0nshire’s collection, is the original from which Houbraken engraved his portrait of Cromwell, and from which the oil-painting by an unknown hand in the Earl of Sandwich’s collection at Hinchingbrooke appears to have been taken.
4. The Portraits of Richard and Henry Cromwell. Searching in the Print Room of the British Museum for guidance, I found that whilst prints professing to represent Richard Cromwell, either dated many years after the Protectorate came to an end, or produced on the Continent at an earlier date, gave a variety of expressions to the second Protector, there are two engravings issued by different London publishers during Richard’s short term of oflice, which give him the identical features of a long thin face. Ihave, therefore, thought myself at liberty to set aside the names of Henry and Richard on the metal labels attached to the miniatures now in the Duke of Buccleuch’s collection, and to attribute to Richard the representation with a long face and to Henry that with the fuller one, especially as this attribution is fairly supported by the Chequers Court portraits of the two brothers.
5. The first Duke of Hamillon. The likeness in the portrait by Vandyke here given is borne out by the prints at the British Museum. There is a portrait at Hamilton Palace said to represent the Duke as a young man.
6. It must be acknowledged that the portrait given as that of Bradshaw has painted in the upper corners A"° 1648 /Em’ 68, and that unless this inscription were added by some one of a later generation, as is frequently the case, it would be fatal to the ascription of the picture to Bradshaw, who was born in 1602, which was also the birth-year of Henry Marten. The traditional ascription of the two portraits, which bear some resemblance to one another, can therefore only be accepted with hesitation.
7. The portrait of Cromwell at Hinchingbrooke by \/Valker was evidently taken
at a younger age than that at which he is usually represented, but the armour seems to indicate a date after the commencement of the Civil war, whilst in the Althorp portrait also by Walker used as the frontispiece, which corresponds very closely to the one by the same artist in the National Portrait Gallery, the staff seems to indicate the period in which Cromwell was Lord General before he became Protector, and may very well have been taken after the crowning mercy of Worcester in 1651.
8. The omission of any representation of Blake is due to another cause. I cannot persuade myself—and in this I am supported by the high authority of Mr. Cust——that any genuine portrait of the Admiral is in existence. All those I know of show him as wearing the cravat, and though that article of dress was already in use in France, and may appear in portraits of English Royalists in exile on the Continent, there is everything to lead us to suppose that it was not to be seen on any Puritan Englishman as early as the first months of 1656, when Blake sailed on the voyage from which he never returned alive. The VVadham portrait, moreover, is that of a comparatively young man, a|1d, if genuine, could hardly have been taken much after 1629, when the future admiral attained his thirtieth year. The first mention of the word “Cravat” quoted in the Oxford English Dictionary is from Blount’s Glossography, 1656, where it is explained as “ a new-fashioned gorget which women wear.” The absence of any likeness of Blake on his Naval Reward, whilst Cromwell, Tromp, and even Bulstrode Whilelocke, have their features shown on similar productions, seems to show that he had a rooted aversion to have his likeness perpetuated.
KING AND PARLIAMENT.
Commonwealth of England, was born at Huntingdon on April 25, 1599, receiving his baptismal name from his uncle, Sir Oliver Cromwell of llinchingbrooke, a mansion hard by the little town. It was at Huntingdon that the father of the infant, Robert Cromwell, had established himself, farming lands and perhaps also adding to his income by the profits of a brewhouse managed by his, wife, Elizabetl1—a descendant of a middle-class
Norfolk family of Steward—originally Styward.—which, whatever writers