Notes

Introduction

1As quoted in ‘$500,000 Slander Suit Over Painting Starts,’ St Louis Post-Dispatch, 5 February 1929. On the case involving a version of Leonardo’s La Belle Ferronière, see Brewer (2009).

2The painting was first noted in 1909 and was acquired by the Tsar in 1914. Herbert Cook was the first to publish the painting in an English-language publication (Cook, 1911, p. 128ff). See Kustodieva (1984).

3Syson (2011), pp. 47–8, 282–3, 298–303, cat. 91. See n. 55 and Epilogue for further references, including the book published by Christie’s to promote the sale.

Chapter 1

1New Orleans Auction Gallery, Inc., filed for bankruptcy protection in 2011 and came under new ownership the following year.

2Dianne Modestini has recently discussed her involvement with the Salvator Mundi and her recollection of these events in the Epilogue to Modestini (2018), pp. 411–24.

3Saturn and Philyra (Private Collection), first published by David Ekserdjian, in Hadjinicolaou (1995), pp.254–9, 484–6 ill.

4Modestini (2018), pp. 23–5.

5Modestini (2014), p. 140.

6His obituary appeared in The Advocate (Baton Rouge) on 5 and 6 June 2004.

7Heydenreich (1964).

8Heydenreich (1988), p. 112.

9See, especially, Danziger (2004) and Somerville (2017).

10See Danziger and Somerville (2004).

11Welch (1920), p. 404. The foreword to the 1932 Cook Collection catalogue states that access to the collection was available upon application in writing weekdays between 2 and 4 p.m. (Brockwell, 1932, p. viii). A more critical appreciation of the collection was given by Lord Crawford (David Lindsay, 27th Earl of Crawford) in his unpublished Diaries (13 February 1921, 41; quoted in Poole, 2010, p. 196): ‘a wonderful collection, containing some magnificent things, but so crowded up with indifferent and actually bad paintings that one leaves the place with a feeling of disappointment. He exhibits 400 pictures I should imagine whereas only a quarter of them muster as first class. Well weeded and better hung, the collection would be superb.’

12Danziger (2004), p. 455. In fact, 113 out of 166 paintings in the Italian volume are illustrated.

13Cook (1913), p. 123, cat. no. 106.

14Berenson (1907), p. 170.

15Cook (1913), p. ix. Gray (1864–1935) received copyrights for several photographs after works of art and examples of his work after pictures are in the National Portrait Gallery. Cf. Database of 19th Century Photographers and Allied Trades in London 1841–1901 (www.photolondon.org.uk).

16Abridged Catalogue of the Pictures at Doughty House (1932), p. 30, no. 106, as ‘Milanese School’.

17The photograph is from an album in the collection of The Late Brenda, Lady Cook; copy photograph by Robin Briault, Image Collection, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC (Call number GBR Ar—DPA 0200300024).

18On Robinson’s career, see Davies (1992). Robinson was superintendent of the art collections and ‘art referee’ at the South Kensington Museums until a falling-out with his superiors prompted the abolition of his post in 1867. See also Mariz (2017), pp. 117–29.

19Danziger (2004), p. 446.

20His account books are preserved in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. See Davies (1992, pp. 377, 399), where she indicates that Robinson would sell paintings to Cook at up to ten times the price of his cost.

21Davies (1992, p. 435) lists the Salvator Mundi under the heading of Cook pictures not listed in Robinson’s account book.

22Thomas James Gribble is listed as a ‘Fine Art Agent’ or ‘Commission Agent’ in London Post Office directories of 1899 and 1901 with addresses steps from Christie’s in St James’s. He was a frequent purchaser at Christie’s auctions from 1894 on, but in markedly varied fields, suggesting his principal role as buying agent. His bidding on behalf of Robinson at an auction in 1898 is mentioned by Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower (1903, p. 592).

23The elder Joseph Hirst was born in 1814 in Huddersfield, Yorkshire, and died on 9 January 1900, his last residence being ‘Edendene,’ Worple Road, Wimbledon. He appears in a succession of censuses as a woollen manufacturer and merchant, a cloth and worsted merchant, and a retired woollen manufacturer. His son, Father Joseph Hirst, was described in an obituary (Annual Register … for the year 1895, 1896, p. 210) as ‘a distinguished archaeologist, eldest son of Joseph Hirst, President of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce. Educated at Ratcliffe, St Sulpice Eichstadt, and the English College, Rome; ordained priest at Turin, 1872; successively Rector of St Marie’s, Rugby, The Mount, Wadhurst, and in 1885 of Ratcliffe College. He was author of many archaeological treatises and papers’. Contributions by him appeared in the 1880s and 1890s in the journals The Antiquary, The Athenaeum, and The Reliquary and Illustrated Archaeologist.

24Cook (1913), p. v.

25On these, see Pezzini (2017) and Somerville (2017b). As an art historian, Herbert Cook authored several articles on Leonardo, including ‘A Portrait of a Musician, by Leonardo Da Vinci,’ (1907); ‘Leonardo Da Vinci and Some Copies,’ (1911); and ‘The Portrait of Ginevra Dei Benci by Leonardo Da Vinci,’ (1912). His inability to recognize Leonardo’s authorship of the Salvator Mundi he owned is ironic, but understandable given the painting’s then overpainted state.

26Abridged Catalogue of the Pictures at Doughty House (1903).

27Brockwell (1932), p. 30, no. 106.

28Suida (1929), p. 140. Clark (1935), p. 80, nos. 12524, 12525; and Clark (2nd edn., 1968–9), p. 94.

29Cook Collection Archive, per John Somerville.

30Cook Collection Archive, per John Somerville. Drown was a painting restorer in a family business, William Drown, that then operated at 110 New Bond Street. Cf. Simon, British Picture Restorers, 1600–1950, online resource.

31Danziger (2004), p. 456; Cook Collection Archive, per John Somerville.

32Kaines Smith (1947), n.p. [p. 4]; County Borough of Bolton Art Gallery. 9 August– 6 September 1947, n.p. [but p. 4], cat. no. 17; Towner Art Gallery, Eastbourne, n.d. [1948], n.p. [but p. 3], exh. cat, no. 106), as ‘Milanese School (c. 1500).’ These references kindly furnished to me from the Cook Collection Archive by John Somerville.

33Written Communication from John Somerville.

34Catalogue of Fine Old Master Paintings from the Cook Collection, sold by Order of Sir Francis Cook, Bt., and the Trustees of the Cook Collection (1958).

35Cumming (2015), p. 458, letter of 14 July 1958. Clark, who purchased five paintings at the sale, wrote Berenson that he had purchased ‘the very beautiful Alonso Cano of Tobias & the Angel, and a Giulio Romano; also a splendid Granet. They were sold for the price of a small Cézanne pencil drawing.’ The Tobias and the Angel was sold at Clark’s Estate Sale (Sotheby’s, London, 5 July 1984, lot 183) as by Antonio del Castillo and has more recently appeared as ‘Sevillian School, 17th Century’ (Sotheby’s, London, 4 December 2008, lot 184).

36Denise Blostein, Robert Libetti, and Kelly Crow, ‘How a $450 million Da Vinci got Lost, and Found,’ Wall Street Journal, 20 September 2018, p.A9. (print edition); digital edition, 19 September 2018, at https://www.wsj.com/articles/fresh-details-reveal-how-450-million-da-vinci-was-lost-in-americaand-later-found-1537305592

37The ship, a cargo vessel taking limited passengers, departed 7 July 1958, bound for Houston, Texas. Lykes Lines was based in New Orleans and the Kuntz’s presumably departed the ship there. Cf. UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890–1960, http://www.ancestry.com.

38Cf. the Collins C. Diboll Vieux Carré Digital Survey, https://www.hnoc.org/vcs/property_info.php?lot=18585

39Blostein, Libetti, and Crow, ‘How a $450 million Da Vinci got Lost, and Found’, 19 September 2018, at https://www.wsj.com/articles/fresh-details-reveal-how-450-million-da-vinci-was-lost-in-americaand-later-found-1537305592

40Cook (1911), p. 129.

41Heydenreich (1988), pp. 101–12.

42Pedretti (1973), pp. 162–3. Snow-Smith (1978), pp. 69–81; an abridged translated version of that article appeared in La Raccolta leonardesca della Contessa de Béhague, exh. cat. Vinci, (April–July 1980), pp. 25–37. See also, Snow-Smith (1982). Carlo Pedretti has since revived the attribution, considering the Ganay painting to be by ‘Leonardo and a Collaborator’ See Pedretti (2013), and Pedretti (2017).

43Alternate attributions for the painting have been made to Marco d’Oggiono by Giulio Bora (1987, p. 31,n. 46) and Laure Fagnart (2009, 76–7, 266 fig. 27) and to Giampietrino by Carlo Pedretti (2008, p. 532).

44Snow-Smith (1982), p. 12.

45Clark (1935), p. 80, nos. 12524, 12525, and (2nd edn., 1968–9), p. 94.

46Modestini (2014), p. 143.

47Modestini (2014) fig. 11. The pattern loosely resembles a decorative knot design recorded on a sheet at Windsor (RL12351, verso); cf. Clark (1935; 2nd edn., 1968–9), p. 41, and Martin Kemp, below p. 92.

48Charlotte Hale was responsible for the infrared reflectograms, utilizing an Indigo Systems Merlin Near Infrared Camera (InGaAs, sensor range of 900 to 1,700 nanometers). These are the images utilized above. Amy Dorsey, criminalist with the Latent Print Division of the New York Police Department, kindly confirmed that the pattern of ridge patterns visible in the reflectogram of the right side of Christ’s forehead are consistent in shape and scale with hand or palm prints.

49‘A peece of Christ done by Leonardo’ and ‘A lords figure. In halfe. at / The copies add: and Leonardo da Vinci,’ in the 1649 inventory published by Oliver Millar (1970–2), pp. 63, 263. To my knowledge these references had been associated with the Salvator Mundi only by Patricia Trutty-Coohill (1982), p. 146.

50These included stereomicroscopy, x-radiography, infrared reflectography (IRR), visible and fluorescent light microscopy (VLM and FLM), x-ray fluorescence (XRF), scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), Raman spectroscopy, Fourier transform infrared microspectroscopy (MFTIR), attenuated total reflection (ATR-FTIR), and pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry (Py-GCMS). The findings are summarized in Modestini (2014) and with high-resolution images of the conservation treatment at a website prepared by Dianne Modestini: www.salvatormundirevisited.com.

51As only one sample was analysed for medium—which indicated walnut oil—it cannot be concluded that it was the sole binding medium used in the Salvator Mundi. Analysis of the Virgin of the Rocks in the National Gallery revealed the use of both walnut and linseed oil in different areas. Cf. Keith, Roy, Morrison, and Schade (2011), p. 48. While linseed oil is the predominant medium in Italian Renaissance paintings, the use of walnut oil is ubiquitous among Leonardo’s followers in Milan in the late fifteenth century. See Billinge, Mazzotta, Peggie, Spring, and Roy (2011).

52See Chapter 62 (‘Della natura e modo a fare dell’azzurro otramarino’) of Il libro dell’arte. Cf. Herringham (1899), pp. 47–51.

53Similar blanching and degradation of the ultramarine has been noted in the London Virgin of the Rocks. Cf. Keith, Roy, Morrison, and Schade (2011), pp. 45, 55n.25.

54By Max von Pettenkofer in 1870, as reported in Klaas (2011), cited by de la Rie, Michelin, Ngako, Del Federico, and Del Grosso (2017), pp. 43–52, who establish the primary cause of ‘ultramarine sickness’ as ‘photo-oxidation of the binding medium of ultramarine blue paint layers’ in the presence of ultra-violet radiation, leading to ‘light scattering and the observed changes in reflectance. This also explains why the color can be restored by the application of oil or resin to the surface.’ Such ‘restoration’ of the color, when successful, is temporary.

55These changes in the folds of Christ’s garment are discussed by Modestini (2014), pp. 145–6.

56‘Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi and the Dramatic Close-up’ was his contribution to a volume of studies on the painting, to have been published by Yale University Press, but cancelled due to a change in editorial policy. It is now published in the book accompanying the painting’s sale at Christie’s New York in 2017: Gouzer and Wetmore (2017), pp. 123–37. See below n. 61.

57Esterow (2011). There had previously been two brief mentions of the painting, but they never achieved great currency. In an article in Zeit Online posted 19 March 2011, an English art dealer mentioned the ‘außergewöhnlich bewegte Bild [exceptionally moving painting] Salvator Mundi’ by Leonardo that would be exhibited in London that fall (Cf. Susanne Lux, ‘Kunstmesse TEFAF; Tendenz steigend’, Zeit Online, 19 March 2011). In 2009 an article headlined ‘500 years later, a possible da Vinci coda’ cited ‘a source who wishes to remain anonymous’ who reported ‘that the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, had in its possession a painting believed to be by the Italian Master’ (Sarah Kaufman, ‘Rumors abound that new Leonardo da Vinci painting has been found in Boston,’ Washington Post, 31 December 2009).

58Sale, Sotheby’s, New York, 28 May 1999, lot 20 (as Circle of Leonardo da Vinci). Esterow (September 2011) soon wrote a more thorough account with photographs after restoration.

59Pedretti (2011).

60The Sunday Times Magazine cover illustrates the article by Kathy Brewis (2011).

61Syson (2011), pp. 47–8, 282–3, 298–303, cat. 91. See Kemp (2011), pp. 208–9, 258, pl. 19; Kemp (2011b), pp. 174–5; Robertson (2012), p. 133; Ames-Lewis (2012), pp. 192–221, figs. 96, 100; Kemp (2011), pp. 35–7, fig. 1.12; Joannides (2012), pp. 57–8; Marani (2013), pp. 194–9. In her review of the exhibition, Carmen Bambach modified her opinion of the painting, writing, ‘much of the original painting surface may be by Boltraffio, but with passages done by Leonardo himself, namely Christ’s proper right blessing hand, portions of the sleeve, his left hand and the crystal orb he holds.’ Cf. Bambach (2012), p. 84, fig 4. See also Zöllner (2013), pp. 420–21; fig. 1. Saracino (2014). Versiero (2014). Delieuvin, (2016, pp. 286–9, ill. in color (mid-treatment photo with pentimento visible). Versiero (2016), p.152f and the book published to accompany the painting’s sale by Christie’s, New York: Gouzer and Wetmore (2017), with contributions by David Ekserdjian, David Franklin, Dianne Dwyer Modestini, Francis Russell, Candace Wetmore and Alan Wintermute.

Chapter 2

1‘E tanti furono i suoi capricci, che filosofando de le cose naturali, attese a intendere la proprietà delle erbe, continuando et osservando il moto del cielo, il corso de la luna e gli andamenti del sole. Per il che fece ne l’animo un concetto sì eretico, che e’ non si accostava a qualsivoglia religione, stimando per avventura assai più lo esser filosofo che cristiano’. Vasari, Le Vite de Piu Eccelenti architetti, pittori, et scultori Italiani (1550/1558), p. 565, in Kemp (2019), pp. 70–1.

2Codex Leicester 1r–2r, where Leonardo studied the transmission of light from the sun, moon, and earth. See Kemp and Laurenza (2019), pp. 222–4.

3Kemp (2019), pp. 280–94.

4Kemp and Pagiavla (2014), pp. 15–19.

5W.19070v.

6E.55r.

7A.24r.

8CA.949v.

9H.67r.

10W.19084r.

11W.19115r.

12W. 19084r.

13Codex Forster III, 29r.

14Triv. 36v.

15Urb. 32v–33v; Kemp (2001), p. 200.

16Ciatti and Frosinini (2017).

17Hatfield (1976).

18Delieuvin et al. (2012).

19Girolamo Casio, Libro de Fasti, Bologna, 1528, CXLIII, in Villata (1999), p. 290, no. 336.

20Laurenza and Kemp (forthcoming, 2019).

21For Leonardo’s relationship to poetry see Kemp and Pallanti (2017), chapters 8 and 9.

22Dante, Vita Nuova, XXI, trans. M. Musa (1992).

23Dante, Vita Nuova, XXI.

24Dante, Vita Nuova, XIX.

25Petrarch, The Canzoniere or Rerum vulgarium fragmenta, trans. Musa (1999), p. 77.

26Urb. 13–14r, Kemp (2001), pp. 26–7.

27I am grateful to Maya Corry for discussions of this group of paintings.

Chapter 3

1The varying titles of images of Christ during different periods and in different centres requires a fuller exploration than is possible here.

2Fischer (1990), p. 332.

3Biaggio d’Antonio (?) The Child Christ as Salvator Mundi, Dijon, Musée des Beaux Arts; de Lavergnée (1980), p. 44.

4The texts were added after the first state of the etching. The space left below the etching and above Hollar’s inscription (certifying that he made it ‘from the original’ in 1650) suggest that the biblical quotations were intended from the start.

5I am grateful to Robert Hollingworth and Hugh Keyte for advice on music.

6The typology is discussed by David Ekserdjian in Gouzer and Wetmore (2017), pp. 123–37.

7Zecchini (2016). The inscription ‘.FE[CIT]. SALAI./1511.DINO’ in the lower right corner has been changed but the craquelure of the gold letters suggests that it was part of the original paint layers and is likely to be reliable. ‘Salai/dino’ makes a punning reference to the famed Saracen leader, Saladin, who was highly regarded for his military prowess; see Jubb (2000).

85^th December. Lot 4; sold for £904,800. The painting is currently undergoing a thorough technical analysis.

9This typology is drawn from a survey of the photographs of Salvator Mundi compositions in the Warburg Institute, London. Useful collections of images are found on http://tarotsanciens.canalblog.com/archives/2012/09/28/22215769.html and https://artmirrorsart.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/mirror-spheres-or-adventures-of-globus-cruciger-in-flanders/

10See Williamson (2007), pp. 1–25.

11http://www.wikiart.org/en/vittore-carpaccio/salvator-mundi Carpaccio’s painting is likely to date from after Leonardo’s, and has been quite heavily restored.

12Pintura Espanñola del Romanico al Renacimento (2010), p. 31; and Alba, García-Máiquez, Gayo, Jover, and Silva (2014), p. 136.

13http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/fresco-known-as-the-sky-of-salamanca-15th-century-by-news-photo/640235863#fresco-known-as-the-sky-of-salamanca-15th-century-by-fernando-of-picture-id640235863

14Białostocki (1976), pp. 313–20.

15https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesus_Christ_by_Antonello_da_Messina#mediaviewer/File:Antonello_da_Messina_-_Salvator_Mundi_-_WGA0757.jpg

16Most notably in the latest edition of Zöllner (2018), pp.17 and 440–4.

17For attributions of the Urbino painting since 1990 see Nicholas Clark, Melozzo da Forli pictor papalis (London 1990), p. 14, no. 24, pl. VI, as Melozzo; Maria Grazia Ciardi Duprè Dal Poggetto, ‘Nuove proposte sul Cristo Benedicente di Urbino e sul Bramantino,’ in Urbino e le Marche prima e dopo Raffaello, (PLACE, 1983), pp. 184–8, as Bramantino; Pilar Silva Maroto, ‘La construction de l’espace chez Pedro Berruguete,’ in XI Colloque sur le dessin sous-jacent dans la peinture. Le dessin sous-jacent et la technologie de la Peinture. Perspectives (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997), pp. 205–10, pls. 100–10, as Berruguete; Pilar Silva Maroto, Pedro Berruguete (Salamanca, 1998), pp. 119–20, pl. 82, as Berruguete.

18I am very grateful to Hugh Keyte for the learned and detailed information he provided about ecclesiastical vestments. See Fortesque, O’Connell, and Reid (2009).

19For the historical images of Christ, see Hill (1920); Giovanni Morello and Gerhard Wolf, eds., Il volto di Cristo, exh. cat. (Milan, 2000); Gabriele Finaldi, et al, The Image of Christ, exh. cat., (London, 2000); Cormack (1985); and, for images that were not ‘painted’, see Belting (1997), pp. 59–67; and Koerner (1996), pp. 108–21; Kemp (2012), chapter 1; and Ekserdjian (2017), pp. 123–37.

20Goodspeed (1956), p. 91; for the versions, see von Dobschűtz (1899), pp. 308–30.

21Homo quidem stature procerae, spectabilis, vultum habens venerabilem, quem intuentes possunt et diligere et formidare: capillos [habens nucis aulllane premature et planos fere usque aurea] vero circinos et crispos, aliquantum coeruliores et fulgentiores, ab humeris volitantes, discrimen habens in medio capitis juxta morem Nazarenorum: frontem planam et serenissimam, cum facie sine ruga ac macula aliqua, quam rubor moderatus venustat: nasi et oris nulla prorsus est reprehensio, barbam habens copiosam et rubram, capillorum colore, non longam sed bifurcatam: oculis variis et claris exsistentibus. In increpatione tcrribilis, in ad-monitione placidus ac amabilis, hilaris servata gravitate, qui nunquam visus est ridere, flere autem sacpe. Sic in statura corporis propagatus, nianus habens et membra visu delectabilia, in eloquio gravis, rarus et modestus, speciosus inter filios hominum. Ibid.

22The text of De visione Dei is available at the Cusanus Portal: https://urts99.uni-trier.de/cusanus/content/werke.php?werk=20 and in translation at https://urts99.uni-trier.de/cusanus/content/fw.php?werk=20%26lid=32832%26ids=%26ln=hopkins

23This analogy may also have been given visual form in the design of early looking glasses, as can be ascertained from an item listed in the inventory of the goods of the late King Charles I in 1649: ‘One looking glass w^th this Motto in y^e topp Salvator Mundy’; Millar (1970–2), p. 179.

24It is now usually attributed somewhat unsatisfactorily to Giampietrino.

25See below pp. 151; 225; 308, note 20; 327, note 112.

26See below p. 129.

Chapter 4

1Clark (1935; 2nd edn., 1968–9), p. 94, nos. 12524 and 12525.

2Clark harboured doubts about the status of the sleeve with the white heightening on 12524 (B). Clayton (1997), p. 81, expresses doubts about both studies. Syson in the catalogue of the recent London exhibition (catalogue numbers 80 and 90, pp. 299–300) argues that the smaller study of the sleeve preceded the drawing of the folds on Christ’s chest. The placement of the studies on the sheet may well rule out this sequence.

3It seems to me that the study for the disciple on the extreme right of the Last Supper on Windsor 12549 is a close copy.

4Windsor 12575 and 12577, see Clark (1935; 2nd edn., 1968–9).

5Windsor 12521, see Clark (1935; 2nd edn., 1968–9).

6Syson and Billinge (2005), p. 450.

7Agostino Vespucci anotations in Cicero, Epistolae ad familiares, Bologna 1477, Bl. 11a, Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, D 7620 qt. INC. See Schlechter (2011). For a full discussion, see Kemp and Pallanti (2017), pp. 103–5.

8The Yarborough version is no longer traceable, following successive sales:

Earl of Yarborough Sale, Christie’s, London, July 12, 1929, lot 123 (as ‘Da Vinci, Our Saviour, Half-length figure, in red and blue robes, holding a crystal globe in His left hand, and giving His benediction with the other’); bought by Jacobsen; and Palais Galiera, Paris, 10–11 December 1957 (63 × 48 cm).

9Kemp and Wells (2011).

Chapter 5

1A 1r.

2Syson in the catalogue of the London exhibition (no. 20) argues for a Milanese date of 1488–90 for the St Jerome. However, on reflection, I am inclined to retain the traditional date of c. 1481, not least on the basis of the emphatic anatomical characterization, which aligns it with the Florentine manner of portraying the bodies of Jerome and other scrawny saints. For the Madonna of the Yarnwinder, see Kemp and Wells (2011).

3Fingerprints are apparent in most of his paintings before 1500 and can be most readily observed in the Ginevra de’ Benci, Washington, National Gallery, Washington, DC; the Adoration in the Uffizi; the unfinished St Jerome in the Vatican; the Cecilia Gallerani, Czartorysky Gallery, Cracow; and the London version of the Virgin of the Rocks. For the Cecilia Gallerani, see Cotte (2014).

4Windsor 12579r, see Clark (1935; 2nd edn., 1968–9), n. 24.

5This has been shown particularly clearly with the early Munich Madonna (Syre, Smidt, and Stege, 2006); and in the technical studies of the Mona Lisa (de Viguerie, Walter, Laval, Mottin, and Solé, 2010).

6For the technique see de Viguerie, Walter, Laval, Mottin, and Solé (2010).

7Kemp (1977), p. 374.

8Pederson (2007) and (2008).

9The copy that best reflects Leonardo’s interlace is that formerly in the de Ganay Collection (Plate 8).

10MS A 1r and 114v. A number of relevant knots, including a drawing once in the Picture Gallery of Christ Church College, Oxford, are helpfully illustrated and discussed by Melani (2017), pp. 53–9. Some knot designs are also discussed in S. Taglialagamba, ‘Machines et ornament chez Léonard’, Cahier de l’Ornament, par Francesco Solinas, Roma, 2016, pp. 1–12.

11See Mack (2000), esp p. 103. For a broader theoretical discussion, see Belting (2011).

12See Kemp (2006), pp. 31–3; and Kemp (2019), pp. 222–4.

13A small, rotated square pattern sketched on Codice atlantico folio 5r is dateable to c.1510. See also fragmentary folio in the Codice Atlantico, 836r.

14Kemp (1996).

15http://www.wikiart.org/en/piero-della-francesca/saint-mary-magdalen-1460

16I am grateful to Monica Price of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History for advice about the geological and optical properties of rock crystal.

17Urb, 158v–159v, Kemp (2001), pp. 171–2. The drawing on which the Treatise illustration is based has not survived.

18Gunn (1983). I am grateful to Arthur MacGgregor of the Ashmolean Museum for information about Tradescant’s sphere, and to Lucy Blaxand of the Museum of the History of Science for facilitating its study. Photography was accomplished by Richard Rowley, with support from Victoria Brown of the Department of the History of Art, while the sphere was on loan the Museum of the History of Science. The largest clear crystal sphere is in the American Museum of Natural History in New York, which is a huge 32.7 cm in diameter.

19The sphere survives in the Grünes Gewölbe, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Inv. No. V 174. See Watanabe-O’Kelly (2002), p. 254; and Dupré and Korey (2009).

20‘Beschreibunge von den Effecten und wirckungen des Cristals, welches der Herzogk v. Saphoÿ dem Churfürsten Herzogen Augustus zu Sachssen seligen zugeschicket’, which appears as no. 211 in the list of books and manuscripts in the Dresden inventory of 1587, fol. 188r.

21Urb 226v; Kemp (2001), p. 96, part of an extensive discussion of lustrous highlights.

22Currently attributed to Girolamo Alibrandi, see Carlo Pedretti, Nicola Barbatelli and Margherita Melani, Leonardo a Donnaregina : i Salvator Mundi per Napoli, (Rome, 2107).

23Kemp and Barone (2010), p. 69.

24Kemp and Crowe (1992); and Kemp and Wells (2011).

25The production of mistioni is discussed in Manuscripts F and K during the period c. 1506–8; see Kemp (2006b), p. 340, n. 4.

26Institute de France, F 55v.

27Villata (1999), pp. 142–3, nos. 158–9.

28Codex Arundel 190v–191r, Villata (1999), p. 183, n. 5, no. 215.

29Kemp and Pagiavla, (2014).

30CA 938v, Villata (1999), p. 220 no. 253.

31MS F 25r: ‘Occhiale di cristallo grosso da’ lati un’oncia d’un oncia.

Questo occhiale di cristallo debbe essere netto di macchie e molto chiaro, e da’lati debbe grosso un’oncia d’un’oncia, cioè 1/144 di braccio; e sia sottile in mezo, secondo la vista che lui l’ha adoperare. coiè secondo las proporzione di quelli occhiali che a lui stanno bene; e sia nella medesima stampa d’essi occhiali. E la larghezza di tal tavola sarà 1.6 braccio e la lunghezza 1/4 braccio, e cosi sara lungo 3 oncie e largo 2, cioè un quadrato e mezzo. E questo tale occhiale si debbe adoperare remoto dall’occhio un terzo di braccio e alrettanto remoto dalla lettera che tu leggi; e se l’è dicosto più, essa lettura comune in stampa parrà lettera di scatole da speciali.’ The free translation is designed to give the sense of what Leonardo is describing.

32Questo occhiale è bon da tenere iscrittorio, ma se lo voi tenere per fuori, fa lungo 1/8 braccio e largo 1/2.

33Kemp (1992).

34Kemp (1996).

35Gregorietti (1970), p. 159.

36Kornbluth (1992); Flint (2006).

37http://stpetersbasilica.info/Interior/Sacristy-Treasury/Items/Museum-20.htm; and http://museo.duomomilano.it/it/month_opera/un-antico-intreccio-di-preziosita-lostensorio-castiglioni/79cd7a67-9fb7-4312-a82a-7497cce3d133/

38G. Paleotti, Discorso intorno alle imagine sacre e profane (1582), in Barocchi (1962), p. 409. This source was drawn to my attention by Steven Stowell.

39http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Stanza_della_Segnatura_ceiling_Urania.jpg

40Robert Elliott identifies the three prominent white spots on the sphere as a reference to to the constellation Leo: ‘Da Vinci’s Signature in the Cosmos’, https://davincireimagined.wordpress.com/leonardos-salvator-mundi-a-secret-in-the-cosmos/

41It appeared at a 1980 sale at Christie’s in Rome in 1980 as school of Leonardo and was lent to the Museo Ideale di Vinci in 2005. For further echoes of the Leonardo Salvator in the work of Luini and his followers, see the fresco of 1520 in San Vittore, Meda, (Olivari, 2007, pl. 19), in which Christ holds a very large sphere (of glass?); and a detached fresco from Sta Marta in Milan and now in on deposit in The Museo di Storia della Scienza e della Tecnologia ‘Leonardo da Vinci’; Brera frescoes n. 61, Reg. Cron. 16; see Frangi (1988), no. 130 g, pp. 233–4. In the Sta Marta fresco Christ seems to be holding a crystal sphere, but the condition of the fresco precludes any definite identification. I am grateful to Pietro Marani for information on the fresco.

42Kemp and Laurenza (forthcoming, 2019).

43The only other painting in which we might expect such effect from a figure close to the picture plane is the Louvre St John, but its present condition, particularly of the damaged raised arm and hand, makes any judgement hazardous. We can at least say that the saint’s face is in ‘soft focus’.

44Kemp (1977b) and Ackerman (1978).

45Kemp (2006), p. 323–6.

46Kemp (2001), p. 86.

47Kemp and Pallanti (2017).

48Kemp (2016). See also Mottin (2017).

49Kemp (1987). See also Radke (2009).

50Institute de France, MS D 10v.

51Shearman (1992).

52Windsor 19115r, see Clark (1935; 2nd edn., 1968–9)no. 24; and Kemp 2006b, p. 339.

Chapter 6

1Villata (1999), nos. 190–1. For Isabella’s quest, see Ames-Lewis (2012).

2See below p. 129.

3Snow-Smith (1982), pp. 18–25.

4From Jugum enim meum suave est, et onus meum leve, Matthew 11:30.

5CA 872r; Kemp (2001), p. 259.

6For Salaì, see M. Zecchini (2013). His nickname came from a demon in Luigi Pulci’s Il Morgante, which was in Leonardo’s library.

7Shell and Sironi (1991). See also Villata (1999), nos. 333 ansd 333b.

8Longoni (1998), pp. 170–1; and Villata (1999), nos. 347 and 348.

9For the presence of Boltraffio and Marco d’Oggiono in Leonardo’s set-up, see Leonardo’s memorandum about Salaì’s theft of silverpoints, Institut de France, C 15v; and for his studio practice, see Kemp (2002).

10Kemp and Barone (2010), pp. 19–22.

11CA 680r: ‘Quando io feci Domeneddio putto, voi me metteste in prigione/ora s’io lo fò grande, voi mi farete peggio’.

12‘Quando io credevo/impare a vivere e io/imparerò a morire’.

13Paris, Institut de France, BN 2038 25r, Urb 38v; Kemp and Walker (2001), p. 196.

14Jestaz (1999).

15For Francis’s extensive collecting of Italian art, see Cox-Rearick (1996).

16Fagnart (2004), pp. 121–8.

17The most committed arguments for the de Ganay picture to be Leonardo’s original have been made by Snow-Smith (1982). The late Carlo Pedretti retained faith in the de Ganay version. See Leonardo in Naples. Pedretti did not illustrate the restored Salvator and seemed unaware of the published technical examinations.

18Snow-Smith (1982), pp. 36–7. It was sold at Sotheby’s in 1999 for $332,500.

19See Chapter 12, pp. 231 ff.

20The painting was catalogued (in Russian) by Viktoriia Markova, Ital’i︠a︡nskai︠a︡ zhivopiś XIII–XVIII vekov: Gosudarstvennyĭ muzeĭ izobrazitel’nykh iskusstv imeni A.S. Pushkina, Moscow, 1992, cat. no. 82, pp. 114–5 [ISBN: 5-85200-175-9]. It does not appear in her 2014 catalogue of fourteenth- to eighteenth-century Italian paintings at the Pushkin Museum, published in Italian. The presence of a CR cipher on this painting was unknown to the authors until the Pushkin Museum’s translation and digitization of its catalogues of Italian paintings: ‘Italian Painting in [sic] VII–XX centuries from the collection of the State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts’, http://www.italian-art.ru/about/?lang=en Having been attributed to Leonardo in the Mosolov collection, this painting has been successively attributed rather insecurely to Marco d’Oggiono and Giampetrino.

21Clara Gelly, Nancy, Musée des Beaux-Arts. Peintures italiennes et espagnoles, XIVe–XIXe siècle (Roche-la-Molière, 2006), p. 125, no. 89. For the Borghese picture and related images, see Carmen Bambach, Leonardo da Vinci Rediscovered (New Haven, 2019), p. 254, notes 157–9. For the fourth version, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gian_Giacomo_Caprotti,_detto_il_Salaì,_Cristo_giovanetto_come_Salvator_Mundi,_Museo_Ideale_Leonardo_da_Vinci.jpg

22In a discussion of documentation related to Gaudenzio and Luini in and around the Gonzaga and Borromeo colls, Luzio (1913, 103–4) mentions a head of a Salvator attributed to Gaudenzio.

23Universalis Cosmographia Secundum Ptholomaei Traditionem et Americi Vespucii Alioru[m]que Lustrationes, 1507: https://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/waldexh.html,

Chapter 7

1Titian, Jupiter and Antiope (Pardo Venus), c. 1525–52, Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. 1587; Millar (1958–60), p. 19, no.16; Millar (1970–2), p. 310, no.184.

2Evelyn (2006), p. 245.

3Evelyn (2006), p. 246.

4Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 11, 1660–6 (1767–1830), 8 May 1660, pp.18–9; 10 May 1660, pp. 21–3. [Hereafter JHL 11]. British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol11. For detail see: Gleissner (1994), pp. 103–15; Brotton (2006), pp. 313–48.

5Evelyn (2006), p. 245.

6Evelyn (2006), p. 371.

7The early state of my research (c. 2010) was summarized for the press release publicising the discovery of the Cook painting and cited in the catalogue entry to the National Gallery exhibition (Syson, 2011, cat. no. 91, pp. 300–3), thereafter passing into widespread general reiteration. It has never been published, nor explicated in full. Naturally, my initial conclusions changed significantly during the course of writing this book as my interpretation of the materials under review developed.

8Shell and Sironi (1991), p. 96. Shell points out that Salaì’s legitimate heirs, his sisters Angelina and Lorenziola, were ‘quarrelsome, greedy and probably dishonest’ during the execution of his estate. Since the values of the paintings were accorded by a clerk and not by Salaì himself, it is possible their status was exaggerated, misunderstood, or even falsified. Now was Salaì himself exempt from misrepresentation and dishonest behaviour, as Leonardo’s writings attest (see p. 123, this volume).

9Shell and Sironi (1991), p. 105. Shell noted that numerous Leonardesque examples of this composition exist, and supposed the item referred to a copy or variant.

10Shell and Sironi (1991), p. 97.

11Jestaz (1999), pp. 68–72; Fagnart (2004), p. 122.

12See Chapter 6, and Kemp and Pallanti (2017), pp. 109–15, especially p. 114. I discuss this problem in more detail, below.

13Millar (1958–60), p. 89, and Millar (1970–2), p. 268. The provenance history of this painting, before and after its presence in the British royal collection, is discussed in Chapters 9, 10, and 11.

14Zöllner and Nathan (2011), p. 250: ‘The Salvator Mundi, probably dating from between 1500 and 1510, is the most important derivative of a cartoon possibly designed by Leonardo.’ The revised edition of 2017 includes the Cook painting; it is attributed to ‘Leonardo and workshop?’ See the Epilogue in this volume for Zöllner’s further revised opinion of the painting at the time of going to press (2019).

15The key texts are usefully collected and translated in Farago (1999). Antonio de’ Beatis, ‘The Visit of the Cardinal Luigi of Aragona, 1517’, trans. Ludwig Goldscheider in Farago, (1999), pp. 66–8. The principal English edition—Beatis (1979)—provides information about the compiling of the diary.

16Antonio Billi, ‘Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1518’, in Farago (1999), pp. 68–70.

17Paolo Giovio, ‘The Life of Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1527’, trans. Jean Paul Richter, in Farago (1999), pp. 70–2; Paolo Giovio, ‘Supplement to Paolo Giovio’s Leonardo Vincii Vita, c. 1527’, trans. Carlo Pedretti, in Farago (1999), pp. 72–3.

18‘L’Anonimo Gaddiano’, ‘Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1540’, trans. Kate T. Steinitz and Ebria Feinblatt, in Farago (1999), pp. 73–6.

19Sabba da Castiglione, ‘Excerpt from Ricordi overo ammaestramenti, c. 1546’, in Farago (1999), pp. 76–7. The date of first publication of the Ricordi is usually given as 1554.

20Wenceslaus Hollar, Salvator Mundi, etching, 1650. Turner (2009), no. 1078; Pennington (2002), no. 217.

21See Harding (2004, rev. 2009); https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/13549

22Hollar’s activity at the courts of Charles I and II, and the question of access to the Royal Collection is addressed in detail in Chapter 12.

23Based on stylistic judgement; very few of these copies have been subject to scientific analysis that could provide information about their geographical origin.

24The eighteenth-century reception in England has received some attention, principally because of the publication in 1721 of the English translation of the Treatise of Painting, see Woodfield (2009), pp. 475–95; Quilley (2009), pp. 495–511. See Dalivalle (2019) for the first dedicated analysis of the seventeenth-century English reception of Leonardo.

25This phrase is indebted to A. Richard Turner’s eponymous book, the first analysis of the historiography of the critical interpretation of Leonardo; see Turner (1992).

26For detail of the historical background see Sharpe (1992) and Schama (2001).

27Discussed in Chapter 11.

28See Millar (1958–60) and Millar (1970–2).

29‘Inventory of Pictures from [William] Frisell’, published in Gleissner (1994), Appendices I and II, MS 23, 199, fols. 28–31, British Library. Frizell was Arundel’s agent who worked in partnership with William Petty; see Reade (1947).

30Magurn (1955), p.101; Rubens to Valavez, Antwerp, 10 January 1625.

31For the Arundels as collectors see Hervey (1921) and Howarth (1985). For Anne of Denmark and Prince Henry’s engagement with art collecting see Wilks (1997) and Wilks (2005).

32For Queen Henrietta-Maria as a collector see: Griffey (2008) and Griffey (2015). The definitive study of Marie de Médicis as patron of the arts is Marrow (1982).

33The coining of this title seems to have occurred in the twentieth century, where it is used by art historians such as Sir Oliver Millar. See Brown (1995), ‘Charles I and the Whitehall Group’, pp. 10–59.

34The reception of Leonardo da Vinci by Charles I, Henrietta Maria, and the Earl and Countess of Arundel is discussed below.

35According to Cassiano dal Pozzo, see Cox-Rearick (1996), p. 153. Buckingham’s copy of the Mona Lisa is discussed in detail in Chapter 9 of this volume.

36Shaw (1937), p. 45.

37Ibid.

38While the imprint of Henry’s art collecting is faint, Charles’s later collecting and display suggests a response to the earlier hang at St James’s Palace, as Wilks (2005) points out.

39Peacham (1612), p.7, names Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury (1563–1612); Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel (1585–1646); Edward Somerset, 4th Earl of Worcester (c. 1550–1628); Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton (1573–1624); William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke (1580–1630); Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk (1561–1626), and Henry Howard, 1st Earl of Northampton (1540–1614). For Anne of Denmark’s engagement with art collecting see Wilks (1997).

40See Wilks (1997), pp. 32–3.

41Wilks (2005), p. 152.

42For the inventories of Queen Anne of Denmark see Payne (2001); Wood (1981).

43East Sussex Record Office, Glynde MSS: GLY/fols. 314–23. See Shearman (1983), xviii, for the compilation and provenance of the Glynde Place manuscripts.

44‘An Inventory or Booke of Remaine of the Ornaments, Furniture, Household Stuffe and other Parcells of the late Queene Anne of Denmarke House … XIXth daie of Aprille 1619’, Duchy of Cornwall Office, St James’s Palace, London.

45SP 38/13, 25 May 1625; Signet Office Docquets, Index 6807 (May 1625), The National Archive, London.

46‘A Book of all such the kings Pictures As are by his Maiests. Especiall appointment placed at this present time remaining in Whitehall in the Severall Severall placees followeinge’, MS Ashmole 1514, Bodleian Library, Oxford; ‘Catalogue of the contents of the Cabinet Room at Whitehall’ MS Ashmole 1513 [a fair copy of MS Ashmole 1514], Bodleian Library, Oxford; ‘Catalogue of the Contents of the Cabinet Room at Whitehall’ (a second fair copy of MS Ashmole 1514), Royal Library, Windsor; and ‘The Booke of the Kings: 40: Pictures and:12: Statuas placed at this time in the Kings Chare roome in the privy Gallory the perticulers whereof as followeth’, Additional MS 10112, British Library, London. Of these, Bodleian MS Ashmole 1514, as Van der Doort’s working copy, apparently retained by him until his death, is of the greatest interest on account of its numerous amendments and revisions.

47Millar (1958–60).

48MS. 86. J. 13, National Art Library, V and A Museum, London. See Millar (1958–60), xxiii–xxiv; a transcription of the manuscript is appended: pp. 210–28. This inventory was presumably made shortly after Abraham van der Doort’s death and before the appointment of his underling, the Flemish copyist Jan van Belcamp, as Keeper of the King’s Pictures. It broadly corresponds to the Register, but the entries are comparatively summary and occasional changes in attribution are made. It is not certain, but very likely, that the compiler of this list had access to, or prior knowledge of, Van der Doort’s inventory. For Sir James Palmer see, Murdoch (1997), pp. 13–5.

49Millar (1958–60), xvi–xvii. Van der Doort apparently believed that the king planned to offer his post as keeper to another man, perhaps identical with the anonymous author of the c. 1640 V and A manuscript inventory.

50Millar (1970–2), p. 63.

51Inventory of Charles II’s pictures etc., at Whitehall and Hampton Court, c.1666–7 (RCIN 1112575): ‘An Inventory of all his Ma^ties Pictures in White-Hall’ and ‘An Inventory of all his Ma^ties Pictures in Hampton Court’, Office of the Surveyor of The Queen’s Pictures, St James’s Palace, London. The Salvator Mundi is listed, no. 311, on folio 19. I am grateful to the Hon. Lady Roberts, Emeritus Royal Librarian and Curator of the Print Room, Windsor Castle, and to Mr. Desmond Shawe-Taylor, Surveyor of The Queen’s Pictures, for granting access to the manuscript at St James’ Palace. Particular thanks are due to Lucy Whitaker, Senior Curator of Paintings, the Royal Collection, for her numerous kindnesses and hospitality in relation to this study. In the course of writing this book, I discovered that the Chiffinch manuscript was transcribed in 1922, the year of its donation to the Royal Collection, see: ‘King Charles I’s [i.e. II’s] Collection. An Inventory of All His Majesties Pictures in Whitehall in Hampton Court and in Stoare’, typescript copy of a contemporary MS. in the possession of H.M. The Queen. 1922, NG 72/25, National Gallery, Archive, London. I am very grateful to Jonathan Franklin, Librarian, National Gallery, London, for kindly facilitating my examination of this transcript, which is annotated on the end papers, apparently in the hand of Charles Henry Collins Baker. There is another copy of the transcription: ‘King Charles II’s collection: an inventory of all His Majesties pictures in Whitehall, in Hampton Court and in the Stoare’, typed transcript 1922, 93.MM.18, Special Collections, National Art Library, V and A Museum, London. This copy does not have any annotations. A further copy of the transcript is in the Surveyor’s Office at St James’s Palace, not examined by this author.

52Millar (1970–2), p. 63. The manuscript from which this entry derives is TNA MS LR 2, 124, f. 5. The inventory number, the identity of the buyer, and the date of sale are transcribed from annotations in one of the contemporary copies of the sale inventory.

53Stone is identified as the leader of the Sixth Dividend in ‘Persons who bought the King & Queenes Goods’, MS Rawlinson D. 695, attr. Elias Ashmole, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Millar (1970–2, p. 305) erroneously refers to John Stone as Robert Stone, a buyer at the Sale. For a fuller account of the Dividend leaders and John Stone see: Nuttall (1965), p. 309. For a concise narrative of the Sale and its interlocutors see Brotton (2006), especially Chapter 10, pp. 256–74.

54‘Divident the 6^th’, Additional MS 37682 fols. 24; 24v; 25; British Library, London.

55See Taylor (1875), pp. 88–9.

56British Library, Additional MS 37682; fol. 24v. See Appendix for a concordance of the Taylour MS, items disbursed to Stone extracted from the Contractors’ Inventory, and the items returned by Stone in 1660.

57Parliamentary Archives, London, MS HL/PO/JO/10/1/285. I am grateful to Simon Gough, Archives Officer, Parliamentary Archives, for his assistance. This inventory, and others associated with the restitution of Crown property in 1660, is calendared in Historical Manuscripts Commission, Appendix to Seventh Report (London, 1879), pp. 88–93. [Hereafter HMC 7]

58JHL 11, p.19. See also, Brotton (2006), p. 315. For a detailed account of the re-assembly of the Royal Collection in 1660 see Gleissner (1994).

59JHL 11, p. 26. See also Brotton (2006), p. 316.

60See HMC 7, pp. 88–93, for the ‘discovery inventories’ of various individuals in 1660, including the painters Emmanuel de Critz and Peter Lely.

61TNA, L.R.MS, f.164, transcribed in Millar (1970–2), p. 263.

62During the late stages of this research I reviewed the documentation and now believe that ‘R’ does indeed indicate goods reserved for the use of the State, however further research into how the Council of State’s control over this process was precisely exercised, the circumstances of the second (1654) reservation, and the potential coercion of the owners of goods disbursed in 1651 is needed.

63A transcript of the lost list is published in Cosnac (1885), Appendix, pp. 413–81.

64Millar (1970–2), p. 263. Bass led three dividends, the 9th, 10th and 13th, receiving goods to the value of around £12,740 between 1651 and 1652, according to Elias Ashmole, ‘Persons who bought the King & Queenes Goods’, MS Rawlinson D. 695, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

65See Chapter 6, note 20.

Chapter 8

1Vasari (1996), ‘Life of Leonardo’, p. 635; p. 633.

2See Dalivalle (2019) for evidence of the early reception of Leonardo in Britain.

3For the historiography of the critical interpretation of Leonardo see Turner (1992), especially Chapter 4, ‘Giorgio Vasari Invents Leonardo’, pp. 56–68.

4For the eighteenth-century reception of Leonardo in England see Woodfield (2009); Quilley (2009); Guffanti (1999).

5Roberts (1999). As is well known, the St John the Baptist (Louvre) was recorded in the Royal Collection c. 1639 and in 1649. It bears the ‘CR’ cipher of Charles I on the verso of the panel. See Millar (1958–60), p. 89; Millar (1970–2), p. 268. The Codex Huygens was attributed to Leonardo before the twentieth century; it is now given to Carlo Urbino (c. 1510/20–after 1585). The codex is preserved in the Morgan Library and Museum, New York.

6Roberts (1999). For the collections of Leone and Pompeo Leoni see Helmstutler Di Dio (2003); (2006); and (2009).

7Pollnitz (2007), p. 22.

8See Wilks (2012). On this gift see: Avery and Watson (1973), p. 501.

9Millar (1958–60), p. 92. The sculpture remains in the Royal Collection: Pietro Tacca after Giambologna, Prancing Horse, c. 1600, bronze, 273 × 280 × 115mm, The Royal Collection, RCIN 35467.

10Peacham (1612), pp. 7–8.

11Besides Haydocke’s translation of Lomazzo, there are two other early seventeenth-century publications through which Leonardo’s name and reputation became better known in England. The theatre of the whole world: set forth by that excellent geographer Abraham Ortelius (London, 1606), p. 74; in describing the Duchy of Milan: ‘a very faire Chamber or Hall trimmed about with the storie of the supper of Christ and his Apostles, an admirable peece of worke, done by the hand of Leonardo Vincio a Florentine sufficiently approving the great skill and cunning of the ingenious workeman, by the iudgement of all men experienced in the Art of painting’. The first (-fift) Booke of Architecture, made by Sebastian Serly, entreating of Geometrie, published in London in 1611, which Prince Henry’s painter Robert Peake had published. ‘Therefore the most notable Paynter Leonardus Vinci, was neuer pleased nor satisfied with any thing that he made, bringing but little worke to perfection, saying the cause thereof was that his hand could not effect the understanding of his mind’ (2nd Book, 3rd Ch., fol. 8v). The London book trade imported large quantities of foreign-language titles from the Continent, among which were books that mentioned Leonardo, such as Pieter van Opmeer’s Opus chronographicum orbis vniuersi, published in Antwerp in 1611, which included Leonardo (with woodcut profile portrait) among its ‘Viri illustres’ (p. 440). I am indebted to the anonymous external reader of this book in manuscript for these references.

Early prints after Leonardo’s Last Supper, may have reached England during the early seventeenth century; see for instance Bartsch XII.81.26, (engraving, c. 1490–1510) where a cat appears bottom right.

12For the role of the diplomat in art collecting see Helen Jacobsen’s exemplary monograph Luxury and Power: The material world of the Stuart diplomat, 1660–1714 (2012).

13The translation was published as: Richard Haydocke, A tracte containing the artes of curious paintinge carving building written first in Italian by Paul Lomatius painter of Milan and Englished by R.H. student in physic (1598).

14Harington (1591).

15Haydocke (1598), preface, unpaginated.

16Haydocke (1598), dedication, unpaginated. Although the Idea was published as a separate volume six years after the Trattato, elements featured in sections of the 1584 publication, see Lomazzo (2013), pp. 4–5. Given the difficulty he experienced in laying his hands on a good copy of the Trattato, it seems unlikely that Haydocke owned a copy of the Idea, published in 1592 (Camillo, 1991).

17Haydocke (1598), preface, unpaginated. Ariosto (1974; rev. edn., 2008), Canto 33.2, p. 396.

18Harington (1591), p. 277.

19Haydocke (1598), p. 61.

20See Marr (2004), esp. pp. 128, 132. Haydocke’s copy of Vasari’s Vite is untraced.

21Billingsley and Dee (1570), preface.

22Sloane MS 2001 & Sloane MS 2057, British Library, London. Trevor-Roper (2006), pp. 340–1.

23Sloane MS 2052, British Library, London.

24Norgate (1997), pp. 12–13. Richard Haydocke encouraged the miniaturist Nicholas Hilliard to compose a ‘Treatise concerning the Arte of Limning’ c. 1600, which depends heavily on Haydocke’s Tracte. Hilliard’s manuscript does not survive; a manuscript copy, c. 1624, is preserved in Edinburgh University Library; for an edited transcription see Norman (1912). See Hanson (2009), p. 41; Pope-Hennessey (1943).

25Norgate (1997), p. 90.

26Norgate (1997), p. 7.

27Peacham (1622), p. 137. For Inigo Jones’s copy of Vasari see Wood (1992).

28Mander (1604), pp. 112–15 (the foliation follows 112 r, 112v, etc.) It is puzzling that Peacham does not mention Arundel’s copy of the Vite, to which one assumes he would have enjoyed access, being a member of the household.

29Peacham (1634), p. 152.

30Peacham (1634), p. 7.

31See Wood (1992).

32Aglionby (1685), pp. 159–90.

33The first English translation, by Mrs Jonathan Foster, appeared in 1850–52, see Fraser (2014), p. 278.

34For Arundel’s collection of important foreign-language literature on art and architecture see: Levy Peck (1998). Arundel owned Giovanni Lomazzo’s treatises on art of 1585 and 1590 and two works by Giorgio Vasari including his Lives of the Most Excellent Painters. The library included works by Alberti and Cellini (Levy Peck, 2005, pp. 126–7).

35For an informative study of the impact of Haydocke’s translation of Lomazzo’s treatise in seventeenth-century England, see Hanson (2009), pp. 39–52.

36For the collections of Leone and Pompeo Leoni, and their dispersals, see Helmstutler Di Dio (2003), (2006), and (2009).

37Petruccio Ubaldini to the Secretary of the Grand Duke of Florence, 20 March 1587, Archivio di Stato, Florence, Mediceo MS.798, fol. 865, cited by Howarth (1985), p. 2, n.6.

38Codex Arundel 263, British Library, London.

39See Evelyn (2006), p. 457. Pedretti (1998); Barone (2008). The Codex Arundel was sold by the Royal Society to the British Museum in 1831.

40Roberts (1999), p. 84. The leather binding, c. 1580–1600, measures 47 × 33 × 6.5cm; RCIN 933320. The drawings by Vorsterman are in the British Museum: SL, 5227.67; SL,5227.4.

41For instance, Hollar after Leonardo da Vinci, Five grotesque heads, 1646, Q,5.13, British Museum; Hollar after Leonardo da Vinci, Young man caressing an old woman, 1646, BM 1850,0223.299; Hollar after Garofalo, Head of a Young Man, 1646, BM 1856,0607.52; etchings made by Hollar after drawings attributed to Leonardo in the Arundel collection.

42Richter and Richter, (1939), p. 398, cited by Roberts (1999), p. 85.

43Hervey (1921), p. 404–5.

44British Library Harleian MS 6272 ff. 176–205, published in Cust (1911), (1912), (1912). Although the inventory catalogues the contents of two houses, it is one document. Not all of the items at Tart Hall were accounted for; there are references to unexamined objects in six locked rooms. Another, separate, inventory of the ‘Dutch Pranketing Room’ at Tart Hall, is referred to at the end of the manuscript; this document is at Arundel Castle, MS IN 1; for this see Chew (2003).

45Evelyn (1662), pp. 81–2.

46Hervey (1921), pp. 450–3: ‘Remembrances of things worth seeing in Italy’. Howarth (1985), pp. 215–17. Roberts (1999), pp. 82–3.

47Hervey (1921), p. 453. Pedretti (1998), pp. 49–50.

48Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. 612. Arconati owned eleven coloured chalk drawings of the heads of Christ and his apostles in Leonardo’s Last Supper, now dispersed among various collections.

49See Roberts (1999, pp. 82–3) for Arundel and Evelyn’s comments about the Arconati inscription at the Ambrosiana. Evelyn (2006), p. 223.

50Evelyn (2006), pp. 222–3.

51Hervey (1921), p. 452.

52Cust and Cox, (Aug. 1911), (Sept. 1911).

53According to Fagnart (2109), pp. 143–4, the painting was probably a work of the School, not Leonardo.

54Arundel had met Crescenzi at Rome in 1614, see Howarth (1985), p. 47; for Crescenzi see: Shakeshaft (1981). Sir Arthur Hopton at Madrid, to the Earl of Arundel, 29 July 1631: ‘… One of Leonardi del Vinci the beheading of S^t Jo: Baptist w^ch is the principall peece, and was brought from Roome by the Conde of Lemos when hee came from being Vice King of Naples’ (Hervey, 1921, p. 300). See also Cust and Cox (1911). The painting was purchased after the countess’s death by Alonso de Cárdenas and brought from Amsterdam to Spain; see Brown and Elliot (2002), p. 67.

55The Conde of Lemos referred to by Hopton was either Pedro Fernandez de Castro y Andrade, VII Conde of Lemos (1576–1622) or Francisco Ruiz de Castro Andrade y Portugal, VIII (1582–1637).

56Millar (1972), p. 11

57Howarth (1985), p. 3.

58Betcherman (1970), p. 251; Brotton (2006), pp. 80–3.

59The Farnese Hercules (Museo Archaeologico Nazionale, Naples) was displayed in the courtyard of the Palazzo Farnese, Rome, until 1787. Gerbier was knighted by Charles I in 1638 and appointed Master of Ceremonies in 1641, but dismissed from the post two months later. Sanderson (1658), p. 15. Norgate (1997), p. 109; pp. 211–2, n. 311.

60Sir Balthasar Gerbier, (calligraphic flourish on the name ‘George’ [Villiers]), MS Tanner 73, fol.119, undated, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

61Sir Balthazar Gerbier, Charles, Prince of Wales, 1616, watercolour and graphite on vellum, 147 × 114mm, V&A 621–1882.

62Betcherman (1970), p. 250, n.3.

Chapter 9

1While Arundel and Inigo Jones very probably encountered works by Leonardo while in Italy during 1613–14, no documentation of such an event is known.

2For an informative and highly entertaining account of this episode, see Brotton (2006), chapter 3, pp. 78–106. See also Samson (2006).

3Carducho (1633; 2^nd edn 1865), pp. 353–4. ‘D. Dícenme, que la casa y Pinturas de D. Iuan de Espina, son particulares y de grande valor. M. Prométote, que tiene cosas singularísimas y dignas de ser vistas de cualquiera persona docta, y curiosa (demás de las Pinturas) porque siempre se preció de lo más excelente y singular que ha podido hallar, sin reparar en la costa que se le podia seguir, preciándose de recoger lo muy acendrado y extraordinario. Allí vi dos libros dibujados y manuscritos de mano del gran Leonardo de Vinchi de particular curiosidad y doctrina, que á quererlos feriar, no los dejaria por ninguna cosa el Príncipe de Galles, cuando estuvo en esta Córte: mas siempre los estimó sólo dignos de estar en su poder, hasta que despues de muerto los heredase el Rey nuestro Señor, como todo lo demás curioso y exquisite que pudo adquirir en el progreso de su vida, que así lo ha dicho siempre: en particular tiene cosas de marfil de tanta sutileza, que apenas puede la vista percibirlas y alcanzar el juicio de los hombres el modo que tuvieron en hacer cosas tan menudas, que parece que exceed á lo que Galieno escribió de haber visto esculpido en una sortija un faeton tirado de cuatro caballos, á donde distintamente se conocian los frenos, cinchas y las demás cosas del carro.’

4García Santo-Tomás (2012), p. 131.

5Relación de la fiesta que hizo D. Juan de Espina, Domingo en la noche, ultimo día de febrero. Año 1627, cited in García Santo-Tomás (2012), p. 133.

6Vélez de Guevara, El Diablo Cojuelo (1999). The book was first published in 1641; see García Santo-Tomás (2017), pp. 129–30.

7García Santo-Tomás (2012), p. 137.

8Carducho (1633), pp. 353–4.

9Helmstutler Di Dio (2006, p. 137, n. 4) points out that Carducho was supposed to inventory the paintings in Pompeo’s collection, according to a note in the 1609 appraisal document, but was replaced by the painter Fabrizio Castello.

10Ibid, p. 156.

11Ibid.

12García Santo-Tomás (2017), p. 132.

13‘This Imperial Hermit [Emperor Charles V] so spent his time, that he daily bestowed part of it upon his sick and languishing body, part upon God and his soul. For sometimes he rode up and down the grounds [of the Monastery of St Justus] with one footman; sometimes he quartered his garden into little beds, set flowers, and planted trees with his triumphant hands, as once Diocletian did at Salona, when he likewise had resigned his Empire. He often practised to make Watches (whose wheels he governed with more ease than Fortune’s Wheel) learning of the art of Jannelus Turrianus [Juanelo Turriano] the Archimedes of his time, making many experiments of his water-works. Nay ‘tis said, the aquaduct of Toledo, which Jannelus had then modelled, was much advantaged by the Emperor’s ingenious fancy. And such a form as they had together conceived in that two-year’s retirement, such was Turrianus his water-work, which after the Emperor’s decease, by a new miracle of art, drew up the River Tagus to the top of the mountain of Toledo. This was the man that, in the Emperor’s solitary life, daily recreated his spirits (much taken with such novelties) by showing unheard of engines and inventions. For often, when the cloth was taken away after dinner, he brought upon the board little armed figures of horse and foot, some beating drums, others sounding trumpets, and divers of them charging one another with their pikes. Sometimes he sent wooden sparrows out of his chamber into the Emperor’s dining room, that would fly round, and back again; the Superior of the monastery, who came in by accident, suspecting him for a conjurer. He likewise framed a mill of iron that turned itself, of such a subtle work and smallness, that a monk could easily hide it in his sleeve, yet daily it ground as much wheat, as would abundantly serve eight persons for their day’s allowance. But these sports were more frequent at the Emperor’s first coming’ (Strada, 1650, pp. 8–9). Strada’s manuscript was completed c. 1602; the first edition, in Latin, was published in Rome in 1632. Famiano Strada (Rome, 1572–1649) was a Jesuit who taught rhetoric at the Collegio Romano.

14Memorial que Don Juan de Espina envió a Felipe IV (1632), Biblioteca Nacional, Lisbon.

15Carducho (1633), p. 353.

16Carducho (1633), p. 351–2.

17Millar (1958–60), p. 73; p. 225. Gabriele Finaldi (1994), p. 111, n.7, misidentified this item as the bust of Faustina minor that formerly belonged to Andrea Mantegna, and subsequently Isabella d’Este, purchased by Charles I in 1628 with the Gonzaga collection [RCIN 1299]. See Angelicoussis (2003), pp. 60–1. The Mantuan bust is illustrated—‘faustina la giovane N^o. 32’—in the Whitehall Album, c.1628/29 [RCIN 970148], labelled ‘Drawings of Statues and Busts that were in the Palace at Whitehall before it was burnt’; the album contains three series of drawings, assembled at a later date.

18Sainsbury (1859), p. 294.

19Hervey (1921), p. 300.

20García Santo-Tomás (2012), p. 133.

21Sainsbury (1859), pp. 298–9.

22See p. 163, for the Head of St John the Baptist recorded in the 1654/5 inventory of the Arundel collection at Amsterdam.

23The painting is presumed lost; a sketch survives, see Sir Peter Paul Rubens, Equestrian portrait of the Duke of Buckingham (sketch), 1625, oil on panel, Kimbell Art Museum; AP 1976.08.

24For the fortuna of the Mona Lisa, see Kemp and Pallanti (2017).

25See Sparti (2003); Barone (2011), and (2001), pp. 1–14.

26Cox-Rearick (1996), pp. 152–3; Barone (2012), pp. 8–9, n. 18. Cassiano’s description of the Mona Lisa at Fontainebleau:Codex Barberinus Latinus 5688, ff. 192v–195r, Biblioteca Vaticana, Vatican City.

27Cox-Rearick (1996), pp. 152–3.

28Rawlinson MS A.341, f.33, (1635 Buckingham schedule), Bodleian Library, Oxford.

29For the early copies of the Mona Lisa see: Béguin and Florisoone (1952), pp. 27–9.

30The visit to the collections are recorded in a letter and list sent by Gerbier to Buckingham on 17 November 1624: ‘Mesmoire des choses lesquelles sont à Paris entre mains des Seigneurs’, MS Tanner 73, fol. 121, Bodleian Library, Oxford. The list is published in Schnapper (rev. edn., 2005), pp. 122–3.

31Balthasar Gerbier at New Hall, Essex, to the Duke of Buckingham in London, 8 February 1625, Tanner MS 73/2, fols. 509–11, Bodleian Library, Oxford; transcription published in Godfrey Goodman (1839), vol. II, p. 371. Goodman understood ‘joconde’ to refer to Douet as a joker, and not as the title of a painting. In the published transcription, the ‘j’ of joconde is in lower case. However, examination of the original manuscript revealed it to be written in upper case: ‘Mais, pour Monsieur Douet, quy comme le chat est fait gardien du lait c’est un brave homme, Seulement une Joconde et un tableau de Raphael c’est peu de chose, un trésor que les Rois Ses Ancestres ont tousjours gardé comme Sainte relique …’. Despite the eccentricities of grammar and syntax, I read the word to mean the French title of the painting: La Joconde.

32Schnapper (2005), p. 123. Blainville’s inventory is reproduced in Szanto (2006).

33Szanto (2006), appendix, p. 465.

34According to a note in the inventory.

35The St John in the Wilderness was given the attributes of Bacchus in the 1690s. The St John (Louvre inv. 775) did not enter the French royal collection until 1661. See Fagnart (2004), p. 122, (2109), pp. 117–25.

36Szanto (2006), pp. 458–60, proposes that this referred to a painting by Raphael.

37Cox-Rearick (1996), p. 153.

38Rawlinson MS A.341, f. 32v., Bodleian Library, Oxford.

39The original manuscript is lost; a transcription was published in Fairfax and Walpole (1758), p. 76: ‘No 1. By Leonardo Da Vinci. Herodias with the head of John Baptist in a charger. 3ft 1 [×] 1ft 6/No 2. The Virgin Mary holding our Saviour, St John and two other figures by. 1ft 6 [×] 1ft 8/No 3. The Virgin Mary, Christ and St. Ann, playing with a lamb. 3 ft 3 [×] 2ft 6.’ The configuration of the items in the printed text suggests that all three of these pictures were listed under an attribution to Leonardo in the original document.

40The painting is noted, but not commented on by Betcherman (1970), p. 258. Kemp and Pallanti (2017), p. 121.

41For this painting, its provenance and technical examination, including a reconstruction of the method (tracing) used to make a direct copy from the original, see Burrell (2006), esp. p. 68.

42Borenius (1945). Borenius believed Lankrink’s copy of the Mona Lisa to be the first in an English collection.

43Libro di Ricordi della Guardaroba (C) 33–35 f.65r, dated 25 July 1635, Barberini Archive, Vatican Library, Rome. This document is published in Lavin (1975), document 40, p. 6. It records the purchase of a group of three portrait heads via the agency of Gianlorenzo Bernini, which includes the Boltraffio Casio. The letter states that the painting was ‘believed to be by Leonardo’: ‘Uno Bellissimo da p. m 2 ½ et 2 con un retratto da testa di un Paggio, chredosi esser mano di Leonardo Vinci.’

44Chatsworth, inv. no. 51. See Fiorio (2000), pp. 91–3.

45Wittkower (1948), p. 50, n.8.

46Ibid p. 51, n. 9.

47Ibid.

48Panzani to Barberini, 6 February 1636, Rome Transcripts 31/9/17B, The National Archive, London; this document was published by Wittkower (1948), pp. 50–1.

49Vasari (1996), p. 635; Kemp (2019), p. 94.

50L.R.A.3.13., Worcester College Library, Oxford; Vasari (1996), p. 635. See Wood (1992, pp. 247–70), where Jones’s annotations are listed in the appendices. Howarth (1985), p. 236, n. 32.

51Hervey (1921), p. 399.

52Lavin (1975), pp. 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 22, 40, 51.

53Millar (1970–2), p. 311.

54For the making of copies after Old Masters in Caroline England, see Dalivalle (2011); Bracken (2002).

55See Fagnart (2004), (2009), (2019), for works attributed to Leonardo in the early modern French royal collection.

56Millar (1958–60), p. 89.

57Leonardo da Vinci, St John the Baptist, Paris, Musée du Louvre, Inv. 775.

58Millar (1958–60), p. 89. The Titian had been inherited by Sir James Hay, Earl of Carlisle, from the poet John Donne.

59MS français 5173, fol. 51, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; see Schnapper (2005), p. 162.

60For Vignon and Perruchot, see Schnapper (2005), pp. 91–5.

61Schnapper (2005), p. 96, n. 68.

62‘pour plusieurs tableaux achaptez par Monseigneur à Lion de Mr Carteron’; Schnapper (2005), p. 161–2, n. 22. Roger du Plessis de Liancourt was addressed as ‘Monseigneur de Liancourt, Marquis de Montfort, comte de Beaumont, et premier Gentilhomme de la Chambre du Roi’, in the dedication of Hardy (1628).

63Mariette (1851–60), p. 142. Pierre-Jean Mariette (1694–1774) was the son of Jean Mariette (1660–1742) and the grandson of Pierre Mariette II (1634–1716).

64Schnapper (2005), p. 98.

65Millar et al (2004), cat. no. IV.152, pp. 547–8. The painting is jointly owned by the National Gallery, London and the Barber Institute of Fine Arts, Birmingham. For Vignon’s portrait of Langlois see: Depauw and Luijten (1999–2000), p. 348.

66Wethey (1971), no. 40, pp. 103–4. This painting has been tentatively identified as Titian’s Portrait of Gerolamo (?) Barbarigo, National Gallery, London.

67Bellori (2005), p. 113, n. 181. Israel Silvestre, Château de Liancourt, garden court, etching, 13.6 × 24.4 cm, Art Gallery of New South Wales.

68For the Liancourt collection see Schnapper (2005), pp. 159–64.

69Evelyn (1827), pp. 80–2. It cannot be a coincidence that, immediately after seeing around the Hôtel de Liancourt, Evelyn and his companion Hendrick van der Borcht visited ‘one Mons. Perishot, one of the greatest virtuosos in France’; presumably the duke, who had personally conducted the tour of the collection, had recommended a visit to Perruchot’s premises.

70MC/ET/XCVIII/251, 16 July 1674, Archive Nationale, Paris; ‘Inventaire après décès de Jeanne de Schomberg, duchesse de Liancourt [ … ]’. The inventory is transcribed in Lépine (1984).

71INV 780, Musée du Louvre, Paris. See Fagnart (2004), p. 122; (2019), pp. 117–25.

72Evelyn (1827), pp. 80–2.

73Schnapper (2005), p. 161, n. 22. Christiansen and Mann (2001), cat. no. 47, pp. 235–7; for the reasons stated above, I disagree with their opinion that the Diana should be seen as part of the ambassadorial exchange.

74Millar (1958–60), p. 91, nos. 78 and 79; p. 125, no. 42.

75Ibid, p. 156, no. 28; p. 157, no. 4.

76Ibid, p. 41.

77Exchequer of Receipt, Warrants for Issues, E 403/153, Part 1, numbered 31 in pencil, The National Archive, London; published in Wood (2000–1), p. 128. Greenbury, a Catholic, was an accomplished painter, and copyist. This item cannot be identifiable with the ‘Ginevra de’ Benci’ since it had not yet entered the collection.

78Millar (1958–60), p. 202.

79RCIN MS 1112575, f.17, no.274 ‘Leonard de Vince A woman with curled haire having flowers on her head and in her hand. 1’ 10" × 1’ 2".’

80RCIN 405474; Shearman (1983), pp. 150–1, cat. no.147.

81Millar (1958–60), p. 21. For Charles I’s acquisition of the Gonzaga Collection see Anderson (2015); Howarth (1981), pp. 95–100. The painting does not feature in the Gonzaga inventories published in Luzio (1913). As Gaudenzio Ferrari in 1649: Millar (1970–72), p. 298.

Chapter 10

1Millar (1970–2), p. 268.

2Ibid, p. 63.

3Ibid, p. 263.

4Ibid, p. 63. The manuscript reference from which this entry is drawn is MS LR 2, 124, f. 5, The National Archive, London.

5John Stone is identified as the leader of the Sixth Dividend in: Elias Ashmole, ‘Persons who bought the King & Queenes Goods’, MS Rawlinson D. 695., Bodleian Library, Oxford.

6‘Divident the 6^th’, fol. 24v., Add MS 37682 ff.24–5, British Library, London. See Taylor (1875), pp. 88–9.

7MS HL/PO/JO/10/1/285, Parliamentary Archives, London. See, HMC 7, pp. 88–93.

8See Chapter 7, note 51 above for manuscript reference.

9Millar (1970–2), p. 191, ‘92. Herod w^t S^t John head: by Lowyno. 40-00-00.’ Sold to John Embry (plumber to the king), 21 May 1650.

10Ibid, p. 257, ‘R. 23. The Salutation of Mary p^r Luino. at 12-00-00’.

11Ibid, p. 313, ‘Pictures in y^e Gallery. 244: John. y^e Baptist at Length. sitting; by Lowyno. 50-00-00.’

12Shearman (1983), pp. 75–6, no. 70.

13Studio of Leonardo da Vinci, St John the Baptist/Bacchus, panel transferred to canvas, 177 × 155 cm, Musée du Louvre, Inv. 780.

14Millar (1970–2), p. 306: 124. Mary and y^e Child, Coppie after Leonardo davincÿ. 15:00:00. Sold to Emmanuel De Critz representing his dividend of Crown creditors.

15Ibid, p. 186: ‘Johanna Queene of Naples: Cōp: after. Leonardo: 5:00:00. Sold to Houghton a/o 16 Jan. 1651/2’.

16For the complex history of this attribution see Pedretti (1998), pp. 49–50.

17‘A True Inventory of Severall Pictures. now in y^e Custody of M^r Henry Browne &c. viewed and. apprised y^e 8^o septemb^r 1649’, Millar (1970–2), p. 60.

18The ‘House and Park of Greenwich’ were gifted to the queen by the king (Bruce, 1858, p. 573 (20 February 1628); Bruce, 1859, p. 198 (8 July 1628)). The manor of Wimbledon was purchased on behalf of the queen, 17 January 1640 (Douglas Hamilton,1877, p. 342).

19According to notes on Jones’s 1637 drawings for chimney pieces and for the arch entrance into the basement of the new north terrace, dated 1635. See Bold (2000), p. 53, fig. 75.

20I am very grateful to Gordon Higgott for his attentive reading of an early draft of part of this chapter and for his consideration of the problem of the location of the two closets; he pointed out that the Queen’s House was more integrated to the complex of buildings at Greenwich in the seventeenth century than it now appears.

21Millar (1970–2), p. 63.

22Ibid, p. 64, no. 73.

23I am very grateful to Simon Thurley for his help and discussion of this problem. The plan is illustrated in Thurley (2017), p. 82.

24Millar (1970–2), p. 137; pp. 138–9.

25Finaldi (1999), pp. 45–7.

26Ibid.

27Millar (1970–2), pp. 138–9.

28Bachrach and Collmer (1982), p. 84.

29Millar (1970–2), p. 139. The statue and four paintings feature in the inventory of items in situ at Greenwich; see Appendix for identification of the paintings.

30‘Keepers of the Pictures. Mr Bellcamp on the King’s side, Mr Daniell Soreau, on the Queen’s,’ warrant of 16 November 1640, fol. 429, LC5/134, The National Archive, London; cited in Griffey (2015), p. 129, n. 41. ‘A list of His Majesty’s servants in ordinary of the chamber’, 1641, Lord Chamberlain’s Department, Registers, L.C.3/1, The National Archive, London. For the identification of Daniel Soreau see: British Picture Restorers, 1600–1950, edited by Jacob Simon, National Portrait Gallery, http://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/directory-of-british-picture-restorers/

³⁰MS Sloane 2052, f.145v, British Library, London.

31Ibid.

32Millar (1970–2), p. 63, no. 47; p. 66, nos. 94, 98, 104, 105.

33Millar (1958–60), p. 194.

34Ibid, pp. 196–8.

35Ibid, pp. 194–6.

36Ibid, p. 198.

37Ibid, p. 194. This painting formerly belonged to Anne of Denmark. Millar (1970–2), p. 267, no. 183.

38Museo de Bellas Artes, Bilbao.

39Millar (1958–60), p. 194; Millar (1970–2), p. 137.

40Millar (1958–60), p. 194; Millar (1970–2), p. 65.

41Millar et al (2004), p. 314, III.83; Millar (1958–60), p. 194, no. 3: ‘item the third being the picture at length in a roman habit of the late deceased Infanto of Brussels’ (modernized transcript). The Cardinale-Infante reportedly died on 9 November 1641, which means Van der Doort’s c. 1639 annotation is puzzling.

42Millar (1970–2), p. 198 [204]: ‘Prince Cardinall by Vandyke £15.’

43Millar (1958–60), p. 194; Millar (1970–2), p. 139 [35].

44Millar (1958–60), p. 194; Millar (1970–2), p. 66 [97].

45Millar (1958–60), p. 194; Millar (1970–2), p. 66 [106].

46Griffey (2015), chapter 4, ‘Fertility and the Materials of Motherhood’; particularly pp. 113–15.

47Ibid, p. 111, n.109.

48Ibid, p. 109, n. 99. See fig. 70.

49At the time of writing, there is a renewed scholarly focus on the locations and movements of paintings in the Caroline collection. Niko Munz, formerly of the Royal Collection Trust, presented ‘Charles I and Whitehall Palace: A Digital Initiative’ at a Paul Mellon Centre workshop as part of the Charles I: King and Collector conference, Royal Academy, April 2018. The RCT plan to publish online a digital recreation of the Whitehall apartments. Niko Munz noted that the frequent movements of paintings across the royal palaces became apparent as they mapped the collection; Erin Griffey, present at the workshop, confirmed this as a prime and problematic issue for the identification of the hang in royal households of the Caroline period. Simon Thurley presented research into the floorplan of Wimbledon Palace, also in the jointure of Henrietta Maria, where he recreated the layout of the long galleries and the hang. Recourse to the primary evidentiary sources is reshaping our view on the wider function of paintings, particularly for the queen.

50Millar (1958–60), p. 148. [Engraved by Vorsterman. (?)Imprimis Christ in the Garden, kneeling at the Mount of Olives, engraved after one of Your Majesty’s little painted pictures done by Annibale Carracci, in a black frame. The principal [prototype] picture is at this instant placed at Greenwich in the little room hung with green damask towards the water side].

51Griffiths (1998), cat. 31, p. 78.

52Millar (1958–60), p.66: ‘A mantua peece don by one of the Coratch. Item upon a marble stoane the Picture of Christ painted, where hee is in a Traunce in the Mount Ollive where an Angell is p^rsenting him w^th a Cupp w^th his right hand, and his left upon Christs shoulder in a woodden frame. 1 f 4–1 f 1.’ [A Mantua piece done by one of the Carracci. Item: upon a marble stone, the picture of Christ painted, where he is in a trance in the Mount Olive; where an angel is presenting him with a cup with his right hand, and his left [is] upon Christ’s shoulder. In a wooden frame].

53Annibale Carracci, The Agony in the Garden, 1596–7, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, RCIN 402990.

54Millar (1970–2), p. 63; ‘[51] Christ p^ringe in y^e Garden, done by Carat. at 40- 00–00. Sold to Col. Webb 25 Oct. 1649’.

55Thurley (2017), p. 82.

56Ibid, p. 81.

57Ibid, pp. 81–3.

58Colvin (1982), p. 117.

59Ibid.

60Ibid, pp. 116–7.

61Higgott (2006), pp. 135–48; p. 146.

62Ibid.

63Harris and Higgott (1989), cat. no.72, pp. 228–9; ‘Elevation for a chimney-piece in the room next to the back stairs (present North-West Cabinet Room), the Queen’s House, Greenwich.’

64‘Work don at har Ma^ties new Bulding at grenwedg In July 1639’; see Spiers (1918–1919), pp. 118–9.

65Bold (2000), p. 74.

66Green (1857), p. 35.

67Madocks (1984), pp. 544–7, cited by Bold (2000), p. 74.

68See Van de Velde (2000), pp. 29–42; pp. 37–40, where the plans are illustrated.

69Millar (1970–2), p. 137, ‘[4] Eight peeces in one. roome. p^r Jordaicon. at 200-00-00.’

70E351/3265, The National Archive, London, cited by Bold (2000), p. 73, n. 46.

71See Higgott (2006), pp. 146–7, for the design and function of the Queen’s House: ‘If, from 1635, Queen Henrietta Maria began to see her house not so much as a place of formal reception during the hunt, but as a summer lodging with a more private purpose, above all for the display of art, and associated almost entirely with [Greenwich] palace, she would have wished to improve the north façade and its entrance.’

72I am indebted to Gordon Higgott, by email correspondence, for this idea.

73The papal agent George Conn, who succeeded Gregorio Panzani in 1636, described Lady Arundel’s ‘casino’, see Hervey (1921), p. 400. The walls of the closets at Tart Hall were lavishly appointed, the one on the west side was clad in yellow leather and satin embroidered with silver and was situated within a room with a ceiling painting of Aurora, sparsely furnished with one painting and a chess table; see Chew (2003), p. 301. This may be the room in which Conn played chess with Lady Arundel on 5 January 1637; see Hervey (1921), p. 398.

74Chew (2003), p. 302. See above, p. 178.

75Cited by Chew (2003), p. 305. Although dating from 1610, the closet was refurbished between 1637–9 by William Murray, a childhood friend and Gentleman of the Bedchamber of Charles I; on that occasion, carved woodwork and a raised ceiling painted by Franz Cleyn II were installed. ‘In 1655 the [Green Closet at Ham House] was hung with ‘greene stuff’; the present silk damask hangings and upholstery are copies of the post-1672 ‘green damask’, whose pattern matches the seventeenth-century damask in the Queen’s Antechamber [at Ham House]’ (Rowell, 2007, p. 25). In 1677, fifty-seven paintings hung in the Green Closet.

76Rowell (2013), pp. 14–31, p. 14.

77Rowell (2013), p. 17.

78Ibid, p. 19.

79Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, no. 1967–696,1. The fabric is illustrated by Westman (2103), pp. 248–9, fig. 241.

80See Laing (2013), pp. 408–29. See also Rowell (2013), p. 25.

81Laing (2013), p. 411; Ham House, 1140140 and 1140141. They are shown hanging above the fireplace in the Green Closet in H.W. Brewer’s c. 1886 watercolour; see Rowell (2013), p. 22, fig. 15.

82Laing (2013), p. 419.

83The paintings of St Sebastian and St Anthony appear in the 1844 inventory of the pictures at Ham House, where they hung in the ‘Picture Closet’; the ‘Resurrection of Christ’ does not feature in the 1844 inventory.

84Kings MS 136, fols. 430–61, British Library, London. See Griffey (2015), p. 44.

85See Martin Kemp in this volume, p. 123. Shell/Sironi (1991), p. 105.

86Discussed below, p. 209.

87Antonio de Beatis, ‘Itinerario de Monsignor R.mo Ill.mo Cardinale de Aragonia per me dom. Antonio de Beatis, 1515–1517’, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emmanuele III, Naples, MS X F28. The passages concerning Leonardo were published by Edoardo Villata, Leonardo da Vinci. I documenti e le testimonianze contemporanee (1999), no. 314.

88Paolo Giovio, Leonardi Vincii Vita (c. 1527), first published in Girolamo Tiraboschi, Storia della lettura italiana (Parma, 1772–1782), appendix.

89See Fagnart (2004), pp. 121–8.

90Cassiano dal Pozzo, ‘Legatione del Signore Cardinal Barberinoin Francia, descritta dal commendatore Cassiano dal Pozzo’, MS BARB. Lat. 5688, fols. 191–9, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome. Part of this manuscript is published in Müntz (1885), vol. II, pp. 255–78.

91Fonds latin 8957, fol. 128, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; published by de Ricci (1899), p. 342. Scailleriérez (2003, p. 94), disputes the tradition that this manuscript was written by Pierre-Antoine Rascas de Bagarris, pointing out that the handwriting of the folio corresponds to that of the rest of Peiresc’s manuscript. See also, Fagnart (2019), pp. 196–7, fig. 81.

92Dan (1642), p. 135: ‘Je donneray icy le troisiéme lieu aux Tableaux & riches Peintures de Leonard da Vin, ou da Vinci, homme aussi fameux qu’il y en ait eu en cét Art, & duquel François premier faisoit tant d’estime, que l’ayant fait venir d’Italie en France, quelque temps apres estant tombé malade en ce lieu de Fontainebleau, ce grand Roy luy fit l’honneur de le visiter; & l’on Remarque mesme qu’il mourut entres ses bras: & de cét excellent Peintre il y a cinq Tableaux en ce Cabinet.

Le premier est Nostre Dame avec un petit JESUS qu’un Ange appuye, le tout dans un paysage fort gracieux. [Virgin of the Rocks]

Le second est Sainct Iean Baptiste au Desert. [St John in the Wilderness]

Le troisiéme est un CHRIST à demy corps. [?Salvator Mundi]

Le quatriéme un portrait d’une Duchesse de Mantouë. [Belle Ferronière]

Mais le cinquiéme en nombre, & le premier en estime, comme une merveille de la Peinture, est le portrait d’une vertueuse Dame Italienne, & non pas d’une Courtisane (comme quelques-uns croyent) nommée Mona Lissa, vulgairement appellée Ioconde, laquelle estoit femme d’un Gentilhomme Ferrarois appellé François Iocondo, amy intime dudit Leonard, lequel l’ayant prié de luy permettre de faire ce portrait de sa femme, il luy accorda. Le grand Roy François achepta ce Tableau douze mille francs.’ [Mona Lisa]

93Evelyn (2006), p. 66.

94Guilbert (1731), p. 74.

95Ibid, p. 157.

96Bosse (1649), p. 41.

97Fagnart (2004), p. 123.

98de Lavergnée (1987), p. 99; no. 15.

99Fagnart (2004), p. 126 and (2019), p. 158.

100Bailly (1899), pp. 3–4; p. 600. It is not known whether this heading is Engerand’s, or a faithful transcription of the original manuscript.

101I am grateful to Karine Groves, formerly of the Western Art Print Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, and a native speaker of French, and to Michaël Vottero, Conservateur des monuments historiques de Bourgogne, for their consideration of this phrase, which does not correspond exactly to modern French usage.

102According to Bailly (1899); MS O¹ 1965; MS O¹ 1964, Archives Nationales, Paris. This inventory has not been seen by the author; it may contain pertinent information. The Duc d’Antin was the legitimate son of Mme de Montespan; he assumed the role of Directeur des Bâtiments du Roi from 1708–36, overseeing the works at Versailles. His Parisian hôtel was later the seat of the Duc de Richelieu. See Jugie (1990).

103Guilbert (1731), p. 157. ‘Un Enfant Jesus à demi-corps, qui tient un globe … Il est de Jean Dubois, & a un pied sept pouces de haut, & quatorze pouces de large sur toile. L’Original est de Leonard de Vinci.’

104The old French ‘pied de roi’ broadly corresponds to the Imperial English unit the ‘foot’; the ‘pouce’ corresponds to the ‘inch’. The metric dimensions of the painting would equate to approximately 51.38 × 37.80 cm.

105Gelly (2006), p. 125, no. 89. Gelly discusses documentation of the painting in unidentified French Royal inventories before Le Brun (1683), also citing Peiresc and Rascas de Barragis (1562–1620) as two separate witnesses, although it was established by Scailleriéz (2003), p.94, note 49, that the record of the painting is from Peiresc alone; a mistake repeated by Barbarelli, Pedretti, et al. (2017, pp. 142–5).

106See McClellan (1994), p. 25, n. 44. MS O¹ 1907b (48), fol. 8, Archives Nationales, Paris.

107Lépicié (1752–4), vol I, p. 8.

108Gelly (2006) and Pedretti (2017) cite Lépicié’s remark, but do not explain the discrepancy.

109Fagnart (2004), p.126, and (2019), p. 197.

110See, for instance, Shell and Sironi (1991); Kemp and Pallanti (2017), pp. 110–15.

111Luzio (1913), p. 117.

112Ibid, p. 135. Trutty-Coohill (1982, p. 146), thought it was possible that item [727] may be related to one of the two paintings of Christ attributed to Leonardo in the Contractors’ Inventory. She did not know of the Leonardesque painting of the Young Christ as Salvator Mundi at the Pushkin Museum, Moscow, which has the cipher of Charles I on the verso.

113For the Hamilton collection, see Wood (2018). This essay includes a comprehensive bibliography for the Hamilton collection to which the reader is referred.

114‘Copy of the Note of the pictures and paintings belonging to the Right Honourable Lord Marquis Hamilton deceased delivered to my Lord Duke according to my Lord Marquis his warrant of the 14th of March 1624’ [1625 NS], Hamilton MSS M4/3, Lennoxlove. See McEvansoneya (1992, pp. 524–6, esp. Appendix, p. 526), for a transcription of the inventory and identification of items that passed into the Buckingham collection.

115McEvansoneya (1992), p. 524.

116Gemäldegalerie 171, KHM, Vienna. For Régnier’s art dealing in Venice see Lemoine (2007, esp. pp. 173–6), for sales to Hamilton via Feilding, and the appendices for correspondence and the inventory of Régnier’s stock, c. 1664, where a St Jerome attributed to Leonardo da Vinci is recorded (#17). Régnier acquired paintings from across Italy and also from the major Venetian collections; he owned nine, and perhaps eleven, paintings from the famed collection of Gabriele Vendramin (although probably not until 1657, when the cabinet was sold by his heir Andrea). See Lemoine (2007), p. 198.

117See Wood (2018) for the account of Feilding’s negotiations with Régnier and others.

118Wood (2018), p. 5, n. 38.

119Wood (2018), Appendix 6.1, p. 74 [NRS, GD 406/1/9536 and WCRO, CR 2017/CI/82].

120See Wood (2018), p. 4; Appendix 6.1–6.8, for the correspondence related to the pursuit of the della Nave collection by Hamilton, Arundel, and their agents.

121See Wood (2018).

122For a transcription of the relevant part of this letter see ‘William Douglas, Earl of Morton to Hamilton, Whitehall, 18 October 1638’, Wood (2018), p. 78, Appendix 6.13. NRS GD 406/I/8369.

123Douglas Hamilton (1877), pp. 526–7. Marshall notes that an ‘account of around that time records the purchase of 110,000 bricks, several hundred loads of sand and quantities of brooms, ladders and nails for scaffolding’ (2000, p. 16).

For the history of Chelsea Place see Croot (2004), pp. 14–26. A second manor house was built in east Chelsea c. 1519; it was granted by Lord Sandys to King Henry VIII in 1536, later becoming part of Catherine Parr’s jointure; after her death ’the manor was occupied until 1638 by Crown lessees or those to whom the sovereign gave occupancy of the house’ ultimately the Duke of Buckingham. ‘At the east end of the village at Chelsea Place, the Tudor manor house, the new owner James, duke of Hamilton, began extensive building soon after acquiring the manor in 1638. He repaired it and extended it by almost doubling the width of the Tudor west range and adding three ranges to form a second courtyard. With the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642 the Hamiltons left Chelsea.’

124At Chelsea Library, according to Marshall (2000, p. 17, n.10).

125Marshall (2000), p. 17.

126NRAS 332/F/1/91; see Wood (2018), Appendix 4, pp. 69–70. According to Wood (2018, p.19, n. 151), the della Nave paintings were taken to Wallingford House after their arrival in London, then were moved to Hampton Court. However, it is also possible that the extensive movements of goods occurring in 1638 could be accounted for by the precipitate removal from Wallingford House occasioned by Lady Hamilton’s death and the distribution of household furnishings across the marquis’s various properties and lodgings.

127Haskell (2013), p. 27.

128Wood (2018), pp. 36–41.

129Wood (2018), pp. 70–2; Appendix 5; fig. 25 ‘Paintings at Chelsea House, c.1638–41’ [NRAS 332/M/4/17]. The location is not identified in the document, but it is probably Chelsea Place, Chelsea.

130I am indebted to Jeremy Wood for our extensive discussion of this entry after he published the document for the first time in his essay of 2018.

131Wood (2018), p. 21; n.164. Journal of the House of Commons, III, 1643–1644 (London, 1802), p. 93. The title of duke was conferred on Hamilton in April at the royal court, removed to Oxford; presumably the news had not yet reached Parliament. Hamilton MSS M4/22 details paintings in crates and must date from after 8 April 1643 since it refers to a legacy of Hamilton’s father-in-law William Feilding.

132NRAS 332/M4/20. I am grateful to Celia Curnow of the Virtual Hamilton Palace Inventories Project for providing access to the online database http://www.vhpt.org, where Rosalind Marshall’s modernized transcript of the entry (p. 3) is cited. Presumably this list relates to the removal from Wallingford House after the death of Lady Mary. She notes that ‘Entry number 27, A Madonna after Raphael now in Warsaw is inscribed with a note implying that it was the gift of Charles I to the Marquis of Hamilton in February 1638.’

133According to Rosalind Marshall, introduction to Hamilton Inventory M4/20 (http://www.vhpt.org), where a digitized scan of the inventory is also published; ‘Raphell’ is annotated in a different hand.

134That is: a Salvator Mundi where the hand rests on a globe, a Veil of Veronica or Sudarium, a Christ in Benediction (this item is suggestive of Antonello’s type, which is intriguing since fragments of his San Cassiano altarpiece were purchased from the della Nave collection by Hamilton). Other artists mentioned in connection with these items are Palma Vecchio and ‘Young Tintoretto’ (?Domenico Robusti).

135Marshall (1973), pp. 12–13. This thesis was based on the cataloguing of 10,200 seventeenth-century letters and approximately 10,000 household, building, and estate accounts in the Duke of Hamilton’s archives at Lennoxlove, which form its five-volume appendix. Dr Marshall is the historian at the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh, and I am deeply indebted to her for extensive discussion of the circumstances around the building, furnishing, and sequestration of Chelsea Place, and for her generosity in sharing her expertise and research with me.

136The earliest Italian account of a Salvator attributed to Leonardo seems to derive from Padre Girolamo Gattico, who reportedly described c. 1639–46 a fresco of the Redentore painted by Leonardo in a lunette of the door between the convent and the church of S. Maria delle Grazie, destroyed. See Fiorio (2005), p. 260, n.7; Bertelli (2006), p. 218; A. Venturi (1920), p. 164; and Gattico (2004). Bambach (2019), pp. 254–5, note 197, points out that this tradition is unreliable, since Gattico mentions a Pietà, and a later source a Redentore.

137See Wood (1990). Such an event is visualised in a painting where the king and queen are received by the Earls of Pembroke in a grand interior featuring Titian’s Supper at Emmaus and Entombment [17th-century British School, An interior with Charles I, Henrietta Maria, the Earls of Pembroke and Jeffery Hudson, c.1635; Royal Collection RCIN 405296].

138See Scally (2013), who notes that ‘Hamilton swapped, gifted, and sometimes sold paintings to Charles.’

139However, this view is complicated by variants and copies. Millar (1958–60), p. 17 itemises a Rest on the Flight to Egypt probably identifiable with Titian’s painting formerly in the Contini-Bonacossi collection - see Joannides (2001), p. 161; p. 317, note 18, fig. 142. Hamilton’s painting, which apparently passed into Archduke Leopold Wilhelm’s collection, is the autograph variant at Longleat; see Wethey (1969), p. 125, no. 90. For Franciabigio’s Portrait of Jacopo Cennini see Millar (1958–60), p. 40; p. 201. The painting is in the Royal Collection (RCIN 405766). This may be identifiable with an item in the upper gallery at Chelsea Place, c.1638–41, see Wood (2018), p. 21, p. 50, note 169, pp. 72–3, note 26.

140Jeremy Wood thinks this hypothesis unfeasible; by email communication with author, August 2018.

141Wood (2018), Appendix 8, pp. 80–167.

142NRAS 332/M4/22 details a legacy of paintings from William, Basil Feilding’s father, which includes the earl’s portrait by Van Dyck (NG5633). He was killed on 3 April 1643, so the inventory was compiled after that date.

Chapter 11

1See Chapters 1 and 12 in this volume.

2The painting was gifted to Charles I by George, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, after 1635, see Griffey (2015), p. 103. For the building and fitting out of the chapel, and gifts from Rome, see Griffey (2015), pp. 99–104.

3Loomie (1998), pp. 680–2.

4Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1641–43, p. 94, cited by Loomie (1998), p. 681, n.13.

5Loomie (1998), p. 681.

6Quoted in Spraggon (2003), pp. 259–60.

7Brotton (2006), p. 205.

8See Aston (1996), pp. 113–21.

9Journal of the House of Commons, VI, p. 148.

10Evelyn (2006), p. 245.

11Firth and Rait (1911), vol. II, p. 160.

12The trustees were: John Humphreys, George Wither, Anthony Mildmay, Ralph Grafton, Michael Lampier, Jan van Belcamp, Philip Carteret, Henry Creech, John Foach, David Powell, and Edward Winslow. See Firth and Rait (1911), vol. II, p. 160.

13Will of Jan van Belcamp, 24 December 1651, The National Archive PROB 11/219/769: ‘I doe require my three freinds Mr Dirrick Hoaste Elder of the Netherland London Congregation and Mr Tymothy Cruso and Mr Anthony Tyrence London Merchants to bee Overseer of this my last will and Testament’. Belcamp left detailed instructions for his executors, and specifically mentions goods in the Commonwealth Sale: ‘Note alsoe that I am allowed 1420 pounds in the list and that I have secured some 5 pictures is contract for in my debt by order of the Comitty of Trustees that yee may first dispatch and gett an order of delivery and to bee abate into the Treasurie/ And that there is above 1500 pounds more due unto my since 1642/ for my many other debt of Lords and Ladyes and others I will not trouble you noe further becase written in my books and may doe as you see cause’. He also reminded them to retrieve a painting lent to Gerbier: ‘Sir Balthazar Gerbier hath a picture of my now this is almost two yeares since which hee was to restore or to pay for it 15 pounds Hee hather borrowed alsoe 2 pounds of mee.’ I am very grateful to Justin Davies and James Innes-Mulraine of the Van Dyck and Jordaens Panel Project for their generosity in sharing their discovery and transcription of this document. The paintings were allotted to Belcamp on 8 October 1651; as can be deduced from the will, they had not yet been disbursed by 24 December 1651. The will mentions five paintings; I have been able to identify only four in the records of the Commonwealth Sale inventory. Hooste may be Theodorick (known as Derick) Hooste, descended from a prominent Flemish Walloon family, whose ancestors came as refugees to England in 1569. He married Jane Desmarstres, daughter of a rich merchant of London (see George William Collen, The Baronetage of England (London, 1840), p. 297). Timotheus Cruso was born in Norwich; he was a lieutenant in the Honourable Artillery Co. His brother John Cruso was educated at Caius College, Cambridge; he was an elder of the Dutch Reformed Church at Norwich and captain of the Dutch company of the trained bands of Norwich, and published translations of Dutch military literature, including the highly influential work Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie (Cambridge, 1632). The second edition (1644) was dedicated to the radical London mercer Colonel Edmond Harvey. See Lawrence (2009), pp. 291–303; Grell (2017), p. 65; p. 72, n. 37 and 38. The Cruso family settled in Norwich in the late sixteenth century and were of Flemish origin. Tierens (whose name is anglicized to ‘Terence’ in the Commonwealth Sale inventory) formed a London trading company with his cousin Gerrit van Heijthuijsen, whose brother Willem was a prolific art collector, to judge by the posthumous inventory of his estate. Tierens’s parents were Flemish immigrants to Holland. See Biesboer and Togneri (2001), p. 93, n. 4.

14Millar (1970–2), p. 268.

15Ibid, p. 64.

16Ibid, p. 66.

17Ibid, p. 258.

18Beal (1984), pp. 308–9. The Drapers’ Hall was then located in St Swithin’s Lane, so it seems a likely location for a textile merchant’s premises.

19According to Brejon de Lavergnée (1987), pp. 135–7; Brown (1995), p. 92; Brotton (2006), pp. 298–9. New evidence, discussed in Chapter 14, may cast doubt over this version of the provenance history.

20Cosnac (1884), p. 188. Schnapper (2005, p. 269), points out that the Bordeaux-Mazarin correspondence does not give the name of Jabach as a buyer in person at the sale, suggesting he used a merchant or intermediary such as Oudancourt.

21For Renard see Schnapper (2005), pp. 186–8.

22Schnapper (2005), p. 187.

23Attributed to Sir Balthasar Gerbier (1651), p. 84.

24Cited in Brotton (2006), p. 244.

25Millar (1970–2), pp. 55–6.

26Ibid, pp. 62–8.

27Ibid, p. 72.

28Ibid, pp. 256–74. Each item is prefixed ‘R’; as indicated in Chapter 7, I propose this is an abbreviation for ‘Reserved Goods’ (that is, goods reserved for the use of the State), although the goods were marked as sold to individuals and dividend leaders; see Chapter 14, p. 261.

29Bachrach and Collmer (1982), p. 61. Huygens arrived in England on 25 December 1651. The ‘unicorn horn’ had been sold to Edward Bass and his dividend on 19 December 1651 for £600 (Millar, 1970–2, p. 25). Loomie (1989, p. 258) says this visit was in December 1651; Brotton (2006, p. 231) says it was ‘several months after the start of the sale’; Huygens diary gives the date of the visit as Tuesday, 23 January [Old Dutch style]. Huygens experienced some difficulty in viewing the sale, on the first occasion ‘those in charge had gone out’. The unicorn horn was already sold but remained at Somerset House, presumably awaiting collection by Bass. The ‘peece of Christ’ was disbursed to Stone in October 1651; whether it was actually still present when Huygens visited a couple of months later is not ascertained. Huygens visited many of the locations from which works of art had been excised or removed for sale. On 31 December 1651, he visited the Banqueting House, where he remarked on ‘those beautiful Rubens paintings’ (Bachrach and Collmer, 1982, p. 43); on 22 January 1652, he visited Somerset House, where he visited the queen’s chapel, but found it ‘entirely changed now; all the paintings which covered the ceiling are painted over with blue’ (Bachrach and Collmer, 1982, p. 60). He visited the Queen’s House, Greenwich on Tuesday, 27 January 1652, giving a vivid account: ‘we entered the house that had originally been built for the Queen but which is now being prepared for President [Bulstrode] Whitelocke. The Queen’s name and coat of arms are still to be seen everywhere. The house is not very large but neat and well built although of red brick, but plastered on the outside and so looking very much like freestone. The large trunk road which runs around the park goes right through the middle of the house. The house is built on either side and joined above so that what is underneath is only a gate. When one enters, there is a large hall on one side with a balustrade around it; and the ceiling is decorated with fairly good paintings. The rest of the house consists of rooms of normal size only and not furnished yet; two or three marble mantelpieces were worth looking at however, being finely sculptured with all sorts of ornamental foliage. Next to the great hall was a remarkable staircase, hollow inside and turning around like a spiral, which rang with a tremendous clear sound if one made any noise hanging over the iron railings from top to bottom. We were also brought into a room with a great number of marble statues, most of which I took for antique ones. Some more good paintings were to be found in other rooms. Going from this house, we passed through a court and a kind of garden and arrived at the King’s house which stands directly opposite the other one. We did not enter, however, as it was inhabited now by several families, among others Mr. Cornelis Vermuyden who is now in town’ (Bachrach and Collmer, 1982, pp. 83–4). Sir Cornelis Vermuyden was a Zeeland land engineer, whom Charles I contracted to drain the fens of East Anglia and knighted in 1629.

30See Wood (2003), pp. 85–121. Lanier’s star mark (Lugt 2885) is one of the earliest recorded collector’s marks.

31For the Mariette Album see Bambach (2003), catalogue no. 137, pp. 680–702. The two drawings, RF 28784; RF 28785, are discussed on p. 681.

32Forcione (2003), pp. 203–24; see p. 207 for the probable Lely provenance of the drawings, now at Chatsworth.

33Huygens (2009). Entry for 20 February 1690 (vol. I, p. 240): ‘In the morning Browne and I went to see Mrs Remy, a woman from Brabant. Her husband was a painter in the time of van Dyck and she told us much about it and about him supporting Mrs Limmon for a long time. For 3.5gns I bought a book there of Leonardo da Vinci of human proportions and movements.’ Huygens was accompanied by Alexander Browne, the printmaker and dealer.

34See their purchases, indexed in Millar (1970–2). On 2 November 1649 Nicholas Lanier paid £10 for his portrait by Van Dyck, which had hung in the Bear Gallery at Whitehall.

35Loomie (1998), p. 260.

36A transcript of the lost list is published in Cosnac (1885), Appendix, pp. 413–81; a separate appendix transcribes a list of tapestries extracted from the Contractors’ Inventory (pp. 419–20).

37Cosnac (1885), p. 413.

38Firth and Lomas (1906), p. 24.

39Cárdenas was one of the biggest buyers at the sale, see Brotton (2006), pp. 246–55.

40Millar (1970–2), p. 263. The word ‘and’ is puzzling; all other annotated attributions say ‘by’.

41Millar (1970–2), p. 306: ‘124. Mary and y^e Child, Coppie after Leonardo davincÿ. 15:00:00. Sold to De Critz a/o’ [meaning ‘and others’, i.e. a Dividend of Crown Creditors]; ‘Johanna Queene of Naples: Cōp: after. Leonardo: 5:00:00. Sold to Houghton a/o 16 Jan. 1651/2’ (p. 186).

42Ibid, p. 306.

43Beal (1984), pp. 308–9.

44Patin (1691). The book was also published in Italian as Pitture Scelte e dichiarate (1691); the essay appears on pp. 35–6. The neglect of this author seems to be modern. George Vertue, citing the book, discusses the print, reiterates Patin’s history of the painting, and adds that the ‘picture was much estmeed by Queen Mary [Henry VIII’s] daughter. & was placed among the most valueable pieces belonging to the Crown. till the Usurpation in Cromwell’s times this picture with many others were sold, & by this means it came into France. Into this family of Patin’ (Vertue, 1929–30, p. 151). Walpole, who later owned Vertue’s papers, also reiterated Patin: ‘Henry VIII and Francis I exchanged two pictures; the king of France gave to Henry the Virgin and Child by Leonardo da Vinci; the English present was painted by Holbein, but the subject is not mentioned. The former came into the possession of Catherine Patin’ (Walpole, 1786, p. 58). I am grateful to Jane Stevenson of the University of Aberdeen for bringing Charlotte Patin’s ‘Leonardo’ to my attention, and for generously sharing her research with me.

45The purchase dates between Perruchot’s death, in 1660, and 1667, when Patin fled France to avoid charges of smuggling prohibited books from the Low Countries.

46Schnapper (2005), p. 95.

47Courtauld Gallery, P.1966.GP.170.

48Schnapper (2005), pp. 93, n. 57. The list, ‘Mesmoire des tableaux et de leurs prix que m^e Postel marchand à Bruxelle à Perruchot’, was first published by Denucé (1949, p. 178).

49Ibid. A Venus and Adonis after Titian was disbursed to Belcamp’s executors, Cruso and Tierens, on 8 Oct. 1651; see Millar (1970–2), p. 258.

Chapter 12

1Bartrum and Turner (2009), cat. no. 1078, pp. 116–7; the editors (writing before the publication of the Cook painting in 2011) catalogue the etching ‘After a follower of Leonardo da Vinci’, and locate it under Hollar’s Antwerp period.

2While there are indications in documentary sources, such as the 1525 Salaì list and the c. 1638–41 Hamilton inventory, that Leonardo produced a Salvator Mundi, this is the first direct link between his name and the pictorial type of an adult blessing Christ who holds a globe.

3There are three states. The second adds two lines from the New Testament: ‘Venite ad me omnes qui … Matt: 11 v 28’, and ‘Ego sum via, Veritas et Vita, Ioh. 14, v:6.’ The third adds ‘chez Gaillard exc.’ I am grateful to Hugo Chapman and Antony Griffiths of the Department of Prints and Drawings, British Museum, for their advice in identifying ‘Gaillard’, and for help in locating and transcribing Major Howard’s notes in remote storage. In Antony Griffith’s view, the lettering probably refers to Pierre Gaillard as the owner of the worn plate in the first half of the eighteenth century, from whom etchings could be purchased, although Turner (2009) was not able to trace any extant copies of the third state.

4Above, p. 162; p. 313, note 45.

5Trutty-Coohill (1982), p. 144; however, she erroneously included the Leonardesque Young Christ, as Salvator Mundi, at Nancy. Heydenreich (1964), pp. 83–109.

6See Pedretti (2017), pp. 152–5.

7Modestini (2014), pp. 139–52; pp. 149–50.

8See Barone (2009), pp. 441–72, see especially, n. 52. MS Ganay (private collection) is the apograph of Leonardo’s ‘Treatise on Painting’, featuring the original illustrations by Poussin as they appeared in the editio princeps of Leonardo’s ‘Treatise’ published in Paris in 1651. Sheets from the Ganay ‘Rubens Album’ are reproduced in Pedretti and Vezzosi (1981).

9According to Snow-Smith (1982, p. 8). He was perhaps Albert Bourdariat, of 100 rue de l’université, Paris, an expert in decorative art. The countess’s collecting proclivities were well known: ‘When she arrived in foreign cities, antique dealers flocked to offer her extraordinary works of art and precious objects, as they did at her home in Paris’ (Pedretti and Vezzosi, 1981, p. 14).

10Snow-Smith (1982), p. 8; Pedretti (2017), p. 145.

11Snow-Smith (1982), p. 33.

12The Cordeliers, a Franciscan Order, had not yet established a convent in Nantes during the 1650s; for instance, a small group of exiled Irish Franciscan nuns, fleeing the persecution of Parliamentary forces in County Wexford in 1651, took refuge in Nantes, not in a convent, but in a private house in Richebourg belonging to Maître Hardouin, whose relation, Louise, had instigated the foundation in 1630 of La Visitation Sainte-Marie de Nantes. Its chapel was completed in 1645 and its convent in 1679. The Irish nuns were under the protection of the (male) Cordeliers during the 1650s. See Ó Ciosáin and de Forville (2004). There were many local Franciscan orders—Cordeliers, Recollets, Capuchins, and Poor Clares.

13Godfrey (1994), p. 110.

14Marshall (2009), p. 32.

15Pedretti (2017), p. 145, says that the painting was sold by Lareinty’s daughter Guillemette to Bourdariat in 1901, who sold it to the countess of Béhague for 110,000 francs in 1902. He does not cite any documentation of these transactions, so it is not clear whether this account follows an oral tradition in the family.

16Letter of 11 February 1972; see Snow-Smith (1982), p. 8. The date of Berenson’s visit to the Château de Courances, Fontainebleau, is not ascertained.

17Pedretti and Vezzosi (1981), p. 14.

18Ibid, p.12. Clark (1935), p. 80.

19Belt (1981), pp. 15–18.

20Ibid., p. 17.

21Pedretti (2017), p. 143.

22Snow-Smith (1982), p. 8.

23Heydenreich (1964).

24Snow-Smith (1982), p. 8.

25Tableaux et dessins ancients. Chefs d’oeuvre de la Collection de Martine, Comtesse de Béhague, provennant de la succession du Marquis de Ganay, Monaco, 1989. The De Ganay MS was lot 69, p. 72.

26Pedretti (2013), pp. 42–3.

27See Pedretti (2017), exhibition catalogue.

28Pedretti (2011): ‘La migliore versione di scuola (probabilmente Giampietrino) del medesimo soggetto.’

29Pedretti (2017), pp. 15–42; ‘Il terzo articolo Se Leonardo é una chimera del 12 luglio dell’anno dopo, il 2011, segna l’inizio di quella allarmante sfocatura di giudizi che avrebbe portato all’attribuzione a Leonardo di una delle tante version del canonico Salvator Mundi, e questo in seguito a un restauro tutt’altro che affidabile e per di più condotto sulla base di presunti esami di laboratorio mai divulgati’ (p. 35).

30Modestini (2014), pp. 139–52.

31Ibid, p. 143; p. 154. There is no known 1642 Fontainebleau inventory; Pierre Dan’s 1642 publication refers to a Young Christ, as Salvator Mundi type, see above, p. 208.

32Snow-Smith (1982), p. 12.

33The infrared reflectograms of the Cook painting were made by Charlotte Hale at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, using an Indigo Systems Merline InGaAs near infrared digital camera, sensitive to wavelengths from 900 to 1700 nm.

34Modestini (2014), p. 143.

35Ibid, p. 149.

36See Martin Kemp’s discussion of the rock crystal sphere in Chapter 5. In Jan van Eyck’s Ghent Altarpiece, Christ’s staff is made of rock crystal. He wears crossed bands, only partially visible, which denotes ‘Christ as Celebrant of the Eternal Mass’. See, McNamee (1998), pp. 92–3, n. 6.

37See for instance the halos in the Virgin of the Rocks and the Benois Madonna.

38Modestini (2014), p. 150. This layer probably dates to before 1600, and as Modestini points out, corresponds to sixteenth-century French taste. The green paint was underneath a thick layer of mud-brown paint of undeterminable age.

39Modestini (2014, p. 143), considers the original margins are intact: ‘The two preparatory layers must have been applied when the panel was already in some kind of slotted frame, such as illustrated in the Paris Ms., because on all four sides there is a thin line of accumulated white preparation, (different from the barbe created by breaking off the gesso coated molding of a traditional engaged frame) and a reserve of wood that was protected by the framework. Because of the thin ground and paint layers, in raking or specular light the marks of the tool used to plane the original support are everywhere in evidence. The wood reserve is now covered with later brown overpaint except on the bottom edge. Along the lower left side it has been reduced by one half centimeter difference between the upper and lower measurements of the panel’s width. Since the wood reserve is at least half a centimeter wide, the trimming did not remove any significant part of the image along the lower left edge, a fact that can be demonstrated by superimposing an image of the painting onto a rectangle.’

40For the preparatory paint margins of the Mona Lisa, and the intrinsically thin columns, see Kemp and Pallanti (2017), p. 198; p. 209.

41Modestini (2014), p. 145. See Robert Simon’s account of this event in Chapter 1.

42Godfrey (1994), pp. 12–13.

43Wood (2018) considerably advances our knowledge of the formation and dispersal of the Hamilton collection, but much remains to be ascertained about the movements and ownership of the crated paintings during the 1640s.

44Griffiths and Kerserová (1983, pp. 42–4) give the name of the brothers as Van Verde. Wood (2018) suggests instead Van Veerle.

45Pennington #103, published in Antwerp in 1650 by Hendrick van der Borcht. The painting was bought by Canon Hillewerve; its ownership was acknowledged in the legend in the second state of the etching.

46Aubrey’s original manuscript notes (MS Aubrey 6, fol. 26, Bodleian Library, Oxford) clearly gives the date as 1649; this is reiterated in his published life of Wenceslaus Hollar in Brief Lives (pp. 407–8): ‘When the civil warres brake-out, the Lord Marshall [Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel] had to leave to go beyond the sea. Mr Hollar went into the Lowe-Countries, where he stayed until about 1649.’

47Gordon, ‘Hollar, Wenceslaus’. Gordon bases this information on the evidence of a seventeenth-century sketchbook, apparently among the Harleian MSS in the British Library (not located); perhaps rehearsing George Vertue (1929–30, p. 49), who described the book while it belonged to Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford (1661–1724), supposing its relation to Hollar: ‘In a small pocket book several drawings of Hollar. as I suppose. tis said to be the book from which K. Charles the 2d learnt to draw, when he was P. of Wales {on the cover is the impress of the feathers} & Hollar taught him. There being eyes nose & mouth & several heads differently drawn. some after Holbein. in this little book. is a verse write by the Person who drew the figures. thus. I write to all brave limners that handles the pencil well. and to the Curious Engraver who publickly doth excell. In posses. E {of Oxford}.’

48P.1419; second state of five. Godfrey (1994), p. 110. Vertue adds: ‘[Hollar was] teacher of drawing to the young Duke of York. Or rather Princes Charles. Afterwards. K. Charles 2^d. {see a drawing book Prin. Ch. Sifer & feathers in Ld. Oxfords Library}’ (1931–2, p. 156). The veracity of these assertions is not supported by any royal warrant, nor has the pocketbook been located. Therefore, the claim that Hollar was a tutor to the young prince(s) before the Civil War cannot be substantiated. This role was later fulfilled by the miniaturist Richard (Dwarf) Gibson; employed as a copyist by Philip Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, in the 1630s and 40s, at the Restoration court he became drawing master to Princess Mary and Princess Anne, the daughters of James II.

49Howarth (1985), p. 212.

50Ibid.

51I am indebted to Nicholas Stogdon, Hollar collector and former head of Christie’s print department, for suggesting this idea to me.

52I am grateful to Simon Turner for his consideration of the idea of ‘advertising flyers’ and for bringing the case of Bierling to my attention. Bierling published Hollar’s etching of Arundel House in 1646.

53Evelyn (2006), p. 297.

54Ibid, p. 298, entry for 23 July 1653.

55Griffiths (1998), p. 178.

56For instance: Griffiths and Kerserová (1983), p. 43.

57Bachrach and Collmer (1982), p. 74. Lady Pye was the wife of Sir Walter Pye II, who negotiated on behalf of the royalist cause with Cardinal Barberini at Rome in 1642. http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/pye-walter-ii-1610-1659

58Cosnac (1885), pp. 193, 196, 197.

59Brotton (2006), p. 251, citing Brotton and McGrath (2008), pp. 1–16.

60With the exception of Jan van Belcamp, who died in 1651.

61Griffiths and Kerserová (1983), p. 43.

62See Wood (2018), esp. pp. 32–6, and Appendix 10.

63Ibid.

64P.1455.

65P.1511.

66Hamilton MS M4/22; list of goods in cases, c. 1643.

67Snow-Smith (1982, p. 27) who provides no evidence for this statement. Syson (2011, p. 302), Griffey (2015, p. 168), and Pedretti (2017, p. 143) endorse her supposition unquestioningly. Griffey interprets Hollar’s ‘gesture’ in a number of ways: ‘as evidence that the picture had been displayed in her closet at Greenwich; as a reflection of her admiration of the picture; as a suggestion of the resonance of the picture; as an acknowledgement of her new status as wife of the martyr, looking for Christ’s blessing; and/or as evidence of the queen’s active role in directing commissions.’ None of these, in my opinion, fit with the decorum of the moment, for the reasons given above.

68Green (1857), p. 356, letter of February 1649, cited in Griffey (2015), p. 168, n. 120.

Chapter 13

1Bachrach and Collmer (1982), p. 61. Discussed above, pp. 222–3.

2Brotton (2006), pp. 240–1.

3Ibid, pp. 253–4; Loomie (1989), pp. 258–9.

4The memorandum is published in Brown and Elliot (2002), Appendix II.1, p. 284, who state that the document is dateable to 1649 (p. 278).

5Brown and Elliot (2002), Appendix II.2, pp. 284–5. This list is additionally dated 25 May 1654, presumably the date a copy was made.

6‘Tampoco están tasadas las pinturas pequenas del cabinete de la Reyna, en que ay cosa de mucha curiosidad y preçio.’ [Neither are the small paintings of the Queen’s cabinet valued, in which there is much curiosity and praise.] I understand this to mean that Cárdenas had not itemized them on this occasion, not that they had not yet been allocated prices by the Contractors of the Sale, because this occurred from September 1649 onwards. Since the queen had cabinets of paintings in a number of her households, it is not possible to identify with precision the cabinet to which Cárdenas referred. As stated above, the Luini Boy with a Puzzle was attributed to Leonardo in the Contractors’ inventory. Cárdenas purchased in Brussels in 1659 a Heriodias with the head of St John the Baptist attributed to Leonardo from the Arundel collection; see Brown and Elliot (2002), Appendix III.4, p. 293.

7Col. William Wetton, Col. William Webb, and Sergeant-Major Robert Gravener; see Brotton (2006), pp. 247–8.

8Brown and Elliot (2002), Appendix 1:2, pp. 279–80, translated in Brotton and McGrath (2008), p. 9, Document 2.

9For Bordeaux’s purchases at the Commonwealth Sale on behalf of Mazarin see Brotton (2006), p. 288–9; pp. 296–306.

10Brotton (2006), p. 260.

11Don Alonso de Cárdenas to Luis de Haro, 20 October 1651: ‘My Lord. In this letter, I shall inform Your Honour of developments as regards the paintings, which are limited to the difficulties which have occurred in putting the [Second] List into effect, which have meant that those best placed, or who pay the most, have chosen the most sought-after paintings and which are the easiest to sell. This has left to others the remainder—the ballast—those paintings of less value, and harder to dispose of. Consequently, interested parties met at Parliament, and sent a representative group to find a way of dealing fairly with them all. One of the methods suggested, the one that was most favoured, and that they are trying to implement, was that those creditors whose debts did not exceed 15,000 escudos should form syndicates. Working from this figure, and in accordance with the asking prices, it was proposed that they should assemble sets of valuables of good quality. They should then draw lots between fourteen dividends that the creditors have created, and the winner should choose the share that he desired. In any case, there has been a delay until now in resolving the issue of its adjudication, and the next week, so they say, they will go ahead with this, and the sale will come to an end.’ Published in Brotton and McGrath (2008), Document 9, pp. 12–13.

12For the record of the transaction, see Millar (1972), p. 268.

13For Nicholas Stone, and family, see: White (2004).

14Soane Museum volumes 92 and 93; see Spiers (1918–19).

15Wood (1994).

16Parish register, St Martin-in-the-Fields, London, 11 September 1667.

17Vertue (1929–30), p. 89.

18According to Vertue (1929–30), p. 89. Adam White attributes the authorship of the book to Nicholas Stone.

19As Brotton (2006, p. 266) notes: ‘The creditors required expertise in the art market, which gave men like Captain Stone and Emmanuel de Critz a crucial advantage in shaping the dividends’ fate.’

20Attr. Elias Ashmole, ‘Persons who bought the King & Queenes Goods’; c. 1659–61, MS Rawlinson D.695, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

21Vertue (1929–30), p. 90; p. 99.

22A Biographical Dictionary of Sculptors in Britain, 1660–1851, ‘JOHN STONE’. Online version. http://liberty.henry-moore.org/henrymoore/sculptor/browserecord.php?-action=browse&-recid=2597%26from:list=true%26x=0

23‘In 1639–40 Zachary Taylor carved ten pedestals, with bull heads, festoons, fruit, leaves and flowers, for marble statues to stand on; while Nicholas Stone operated on the thighs, legs and feet of one of these statues—a young man—to keep him erect with iron cramps’ (Colvin, 1982, p. 121. n.7).

24For the protracted negotiations for the purchase of the antique statuary from Mantua see Anderson (2015), pp. 135–43. The Whitehall Album, c. 1628/29 [RCIN 970148], labelled ‘Drawings of Statues and Busts that were in the Palace at Whitehall before it was burnt’, contains three series of drawings, assembled at a later date. The first two comprise 157 images of male and female busts drawn in brown ink, and 64 statues in red chalk; these reproduce antiquities formerly in the Gonzaga collection. See Rumberg and Shawe-Taylor (2018), p. 254, cat. no. 139 (the album); p. 236, cat. no. 20 (bust of Faustina); p. 78; p. 237, cat. no. 32 (The Triumph of Caesar: The Musicians).

25Angelicoussis (2003), pp. 60–1, figs. 2 and 5.

26Farnell (1967), p. 39.

27Green (1875), p. 237, 8 November 1653; item 23.

28Ibid, p. 315, 28 December 1653, item 3.

29Ibid, p. 386, 25 January 1654.

30Ibid, p. 390, 6 February 1654.

31Ibid, p. 252, 13 July 1654.

32Ibid, p. 315, 28 December 1653, item 3.

33Millar (1972), p. 76.

34Ibid. See also Griffey (2015), pp. 154–5.

35MS Egerton 1636, fol. 203, British Library, London, transcribed in Beal, (1984), p. 310.

36Wethey (1975), vol. 3, cat. no. L-12, Roman Emperors, pp. 235–40. The paintings were hung in the Gabinetto dei Cesari in the Ducal Palace at Mantua. For the brokerage of the sale see Anderson (2015), pp. 124–5; pp. 134–5.

37In the 1627 inventory of the galleries at Mantua, the item immediately following Titian’s eleven Emperors is ‘another similar canvas with the figure of an Emperor by the hand of Giulio Romano, framed like the aforementioned.’ Luzio (1913), p. 90, no. 2. According to Wethey this entry was made in error, and the copy was made by Bernardino Campi in 1562; see Wethey (1975), vol. 3, pp. 43–4, n. 223.

38Wethey (1975), vol. 3, p. 235.

39According to Van der Doort, see Millar (1958–60), p. 174.

40Millar (1958–60), p. 184: ‘itm at san jams de 12 imperors on terauff bin a kopi’ [idem at St James’s the Twelve Emperors, one thereof being a copy]. The c. 1640 inventory records only seven of Titian’s Emperors at St James’s (pp. 226–7; p. 235).

41Wilks (2005), p. 159.

42Millar (1970–72), p. 270.

43Brotton and McGrath (2008), p. 13; Appendix, document 10, 24 November 1651.

44HMC 7, p. 89.

45Attr. Elias Ashmole, ‘Persons who bought the King & Queenes Goods’, c. 1659, MS Rawlinson D.695, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

46Taylor (1875), p. 88.

47Taylor (1875), p. 74; HMC 7, pp. 71–5.

48Memorandum written by ‘Aunt Rebecca’, in Taylor (1875), p. 58.

49Ibid.

50Ibid, p. 60.

51HMC 7, p. 92.

52Intelligencer, 13 June 1664; in ‘The art world in Britain 1660 to 1735’, at http://artworld.york.ac.uk; accessed 3 August 2017.

53http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/holcroft-sir-henry-1586-1650.

Chapter 14

1For the assembly of the royal collection at the Restoration see Gleissner (1994); Brotton (2005), pp. 115–35; Brotton (2006), pp. 328–51; Reynolds (2017), pp. 246–87.

2Additional MS 23199, ff. 28–31, British Library, London, where a holograph note in the hand of Charles II is annotated to the inventory of seventy-two paintings: ‘Frizill keepe these picktures till I send for them. Breda 3 Aprill 1660.’ William Frizell had supplied paintings to the Earl of Arundel, and Charles I, and was highly regarded as a connoisseur; see Reade (1947) where the document is transcribed.

3HMC 7, p. 88; Journals of the House of Lords, XI, p. 19.

4Ibid, xii.

5Ibid, p. 23.

6These lists are in the House of Lords Archive, and are calendared in HMC 7, pp. 88–93. See also Maddicott (1999), pp. 1–24, and Wood (1994).

7However, Andrew Barclay’s recent scholarship places an important caveat on the traditional understanding of the events and ordinances of 1660. He points out that the return of goods to the Crown in 1660 was undertaken ‘in a more consensual manner than has previously been assumed’, which, he notes, ‘fits with the prevailing mood of the Restoration moment of 1660.’ ‘That the Act of Indemnity did not compel all the owners of royal goods to return them made it possible for some of them to seek to use those returns to their advantage.’ (Barclay, 2015)

8HL/PO/JO/10/1/285, fol. 80, May 1660, Main Papers, House of Lords Record Office, Parliamentary Archive, London. See Brotton (2006, pp. 316–7), who notes the political motives manifest in Geldorp’s submission and activities.

9For the career of Thomas Beauchamp, see Beauchamp (2010), pp. 6–18.

10Webb would not be appointed to his former office by Charles II.

11HMC 7, p. 90–1. See Beauchamp (2010, pp. 9–10) for a concordance of the discovery schedule with the Contractors’ Inventory and comments on the present location of the paintings, if known.

12Pepys (1970), pp. 188–9, cited in Brotton (2006), p. 317, n. 10. HMC 7, p. 92.

13HMC 7, part I, pp. 88–93; Harvester Microform (Brighton, c. 1983), part 5 [identified by Griffey as the 1651 inventory of reserved goods compiled by Beauchamp and audited by him in July 1654], Main papers of the House of Lords, Parliamentary Archive, London.

14For a full account see Beauchamp (2010), pp. 11–12. Beauchamp’s assertion that this committee was set up in 1660 is at variance with Gleissner, who gives a date of 1662 for its inauguration (Gleissner, 1994, p. 105 and n. 18). While the arrangement of the documentation regarding Hawley and Beauchamp in HMC 7 (p. 92) is suggestive of an earlier date, it seems logical that the institution of this committee would have post-dated the main activity of the Lords Committee of 1660 and the voluntary return of goods.

15HMC 7, p. 92.

16Ibid.

17Ibid.

18See Brotton (2006), p. 333; p. 335; p. 338.

19Additional MS 17,196, British Library, London. A note pasted into the flyleaf was clearly written by a bookseller since it points out the ‘neat gilt leaves’. A marginal note records the purchase on 4 November 1800 by John Brand from Mr Baynes of Paternoster Row.

20For the Norris family of framemakers see: https://www.npg.org.uk/research/conservation/directory-of-british-framemakers/n#NO

21Engraved by James Basire the Elder, 1788; published by Royal Society of Antiquaries.

22LR MS fol. 161v–166, transcribed in Millar (1970–72), pp. 256–74.

23The Contractors’ list itemizes 281 lots, although some lots contain a more than one painting, for instance Titian’s Twelve Emperors. The ‘Hawley list’ (fols. 7v–17) records lots 1–209 of the Contractors list, omitting nineteen lots; these are mainly small statues in brass or ivory. Since many of the attributions are not given in the main Contractors list, but are ascertained from contemporary copies of the list (for these see Millar, 1970–72, xxii–xxiv), it seems likely that the ‘Hawley list’ followed a copy of the Contractors’ list.

24Douglas Hamilton (1860), p. 374, no. 18.III.

25Griffey (2015), pp. 188–9. The 1659 inventory, The National Archive, SP18/203, is transcribed in Prosser (2009).

26Griffey (2015), pp. 188–9. Griffey notes that a memorandum attached to the 1651 inventory ‘appears to record the pictures and tapestries found in Beauchamp’s 1654 audit of artworks and household goods on display in the palaces that had formerly featured in the Commonwealth sale inventories’ (p. 90).

27‘S^t John done by Leonardo Vince’, Additional MS 17,196, fol. 15v, British Library, London. Millar (1970–72), p. 268.

28For instance, Titian’s St Margaret (later at Stanton Harcourt) thought to have been sold to John Embree, and not returned by him at the Restoration, appears in the c. 1662 inventory, fol. 66.

29See Griffey (2015), Appendix 2, pp. 274–6.

30This item reappears (fol.19) in the c. 1666 inventory of Charles II’s Closet, where it is attributed to ‘An Italian hand’, and is said to have come from William Frizzell; it measured 1’0" × 1’ 1". Also in this closet in 1666 was Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi.

31For the ‘Dutch Gift’, see Mahon (1949), 91/1, pp. 303–5; 91/2, pp. 349–50; (1950) 92/3, pp. 12–18. More recently Erin Griffey has reviewed the circumstances around the arrival of the Dutch Gift in London, and Henrietta-Maria’s removal to Paris, of items from Charles II’s collection (Griffey 2011, pp. 521–23). None of the paintings acquired by foreign purchasers at the sale and spirited abroad were subsequently returned to the Crown, although there is an unproven tradition, dating back to comments made by George Vertue in the eighteenth century, that some of the paintings, deriving from the collection of Gerard and Jan Reynst, originally belonged to Charles I (Logan, 1979). Mahon (1949, I. pp. 303–4, n. 10) disagrees with this assertion.

32Folio 39v, a night piece of a consort of men and women singing; this item reappears on folio 4, #52, c. 1666–7 inventory of Whitehall: ‘given by Mr Browne. Cler: Parliam^ts.’ John Browne had been Clerk of Parliaments before the civil war; his position was reinstated in 1660, an event perhaps reflected in his gift to the king.

33RCIN 404951. For Wright, whose importance as an artist, collector and dealer remains puzzlingly underappreciated, see Thomson (2004, rev. edn. 2009). Gleissner (1994, p. 105) considers that the ‘Hawley manuscript’ gives an imperfect picture of the goods returned to Whitehall, because goods surrendered voluntarily at a later date are not included.

34‘A small peice being Mary Magdalen in a Blew and Red garmen[t] in Linnen [limning] by Holben.’

35Folio 33: ‘A peice where there is some venetian pastime being one of M^r Rights Lottery peices in y^e Iland of S^t George.’

36See Gleissner (1994), Appendix I, p. 112.

37For the career of Thomas Chiffinch see Fernie (2004). This article does not mention Chiffinch’s inventory of the collection of Charles II.

38Gleissner (1994), p. 106. TNA SP 44/7/134. Attr. Jacob Huysmans, Thomas Chiffinch, NPG 816. The National Portrait Gallery proposes a date of 1655–60 for this painting—that is, before the Restoration—and considers the portrait depicts Chiffinch’s private collection. I consider it dates to the immediately post-Restoration perod. The portrait probably serves the dual purpose of aggrandizing Chiffinch and underlining the success of the Restoration enterprise and Chiffinch’s role within it. It is possible the portrait is in part a mourning portrait; Chiffinch wears a black ribbon on his left arm; his left hand presents a cameo of a woman’s head in profile: his wife? (known to be alive in 1660). His right hand holds a sheet of music on the head of a classical bust, perhaps inferring ‘music soothes the troubled mind.’

39Fols. 33–42 reflects the hang of the Long Matted Gallery at Whitehall according to the c.1666 inventory; fols. 42v–43v follows the order of the ‘Room between the Long Gallery and the Withdrawing Room’, c. 1666. Thereafter there is near congruence to the hang in the King’s Privy Gallery.

40I first examined this document in the context of my doctoral thesis, where I accept the received wisdom about its author, with a caveat that the connoisseurship evident in the entries did not ring true to an inventory purportedly compiled by a sergeant-at-arms. On inspecting it late in the preparation of this book, I recognized the order of the c. 1666 inventory of Whitehall.

41Likely the aforementioned Diego Duarte, also an art dealer.

42Fol. 3.

43Fol. 88. St Jerome carries a staff, or crozier, made of ‘unicorn horn’ in Hugo van der Goes The Virgin and Child with Saints Thomas, John the Baptist, Jerome and Louis, Art Institute of Chicago.

44Inventory of Charles II’s pictures etc., at Whitehall and Hampton Court. ‘An Inventory of all his Ma^ties Pictures in White-Hall’ and ‘An Inventory of all his Ma^ties Pictures in Hampton Court’, c. 1666–7 (RCIN 1112575), York House, St James’s Palace.

45For instance, the two pieces by Perino del Vaga, A Fragment: The Good Thief (Saint Dismas) and A Fragment: The Bad Thief (Gestos), c. 1520–25 (RCIN 402869; RCIN 402868), were detailed in the Taylour inventory and Stone return, and catalogued by Chiffinch in the Long Gallery at Whitehall, nos. 83 and 70, RCIN 1112575, fol. 6 & 7.

46Fols 15v ‘St John by Leonardo Vince’ and 11v ‘A fflower halfe figure done by Leonardo Danotio’.

47Fol. 8 recto; Millar (1970–72), p. 257.

48Above, pp. 190–1; Millar (1958–60), p. 88. This painting - ‘the Angells Salutacon to or Lady’ - was given to the king by Feilding, 26 October 1639.

49Perhaps identifiable with the ‘Patin Leonardo’ [the Courtauld Virgin and Child, attributed to Giampietrino].

50Authors publishing material based on first-hand contact with the manuscript include Baker (1929), Mahon (1949), Gleissner (1994), Bracken (2002), and Brotton (2006), Griffey (2011), and Griffey (2015).

51These are preserved by the Royal Collection Trust; National Art Library, V and A; National Gallery Archive.

52Fernie (2004).

53Inventory of Charles II’s pictures etc., at Whitehall and Hampton Court., f. 19 (15, modern re-pagination).

54Brotton (2006), pp. 336–7.

55RCIN 1112575, f.15.

56RCIN 1112575, f.17. ‘274. Leonard de Vince. A woman with curled haire having flowers on her head and in her hand. 1’ 10" × 1’ 2".’

57RCIN 1112575, f.1: ‘5. Lionard De Vince. Herodiahs with S^t John Baptists head the Headsman holding the head, and another figure – To the Feet.’ Shearman (1983), pp. 75–6, cat. no. 70.

58RCIN 1112575, f. 19; King’s Closet, no. 335: ‘Leonard De Vince. Two Boyes naked. A landskip. Dutch present. 2’ 1" × 1’ 6".’ Now attributed to Marco d’Oggiono; see Shearman (1983), pp. 155–6, cat. no. 151, for the complexities surrounding this painting, and other versions of the composition in the Restoration Royal Collection.

59Shearman (1983), pp. 155–6, cat. no. 151. Reade (1947), p. 74. This composition is known in a number of versions; the best is in a private collection.

60‘An Inventory of His Majestys Goods’, 15 February 1688, Harleian MS 1890, British Library, London. For the inventories associated with James II see Barclay (2010). See also Bathoe and Vertue (1758); pp. 20, 33, 49. Two paintings of this description are recorded in this inventory (p. 34; p. 49); both are attributed to Parmigianino.

61Shearman (1983), pp. 155–6, cat. no. 151.

62Evelyn (2006), pp. 617–18. For Charles II’s library see Irvine (2017), pp. 361–3.

63John Riley, Bridget Holmes (1591–1691), dated 1686, Royal Collection, RCIN 405667.

64HMC (1879), p. 89; p. 90.

65Brotton (2006), p. 331; Pepys (1970), vol. 1, pp. 188–9.

66See Talley (1981), pp. 272–4.

67See Walter Charleton (1620–1707): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/5157. See also, Booth (2005).

68Huygens (2009). This discovery is analysed in more detail in a forthcoming article by Margaret Dalivalle.

Chapter 15

1For the definitive account of the fitting out of Henrietta-Maria’s properties at the Restoration see Griffey (2015), Chapter 7: ‘Restorations: The Queen Mother at the Court of Charles II and the Commonwealth Legacy’, pp. 179–99, and Chapter 8, ‘Her Majesties New Buildings at Somerset House’: 1662–1665’, pp. 201–19. See also Griffey (2011), p. 521, n. 7.

2Griffey (2015), p. 186.

3Ibid, pp. 186–7.

4Ibid.

5The reconstruction of Browne’s lost 1665 inventory is published in Griffey (2015), Appendix 2, pp. 274–6.

6SP 78/128, ff.190–206, the National Archive, London. The 1669 post-mortem inventory of Henrietta-Maria’s belongings at Colombes, Chaillot, and her rooms in Paris is transcribed in Griffey (2015), Appendix 3, pp. 277–91. See also Griffey and Hibbard (2012), pp. 159–81; an online appendix provides details of paintings in Henrietta Maria’s inventory at Colombes.

7Hans Holbein the Younger, Noli me Tangere, c. 1524, RCIN 400001. The painting and its black velvet case are itemized in the 1669 inventory, The National Archive SP 78/128, fols. 193r, 200r; see Griffey and Hibbard (2012), Appendix: ‘A Noli me Tangere’ [in margin ‘To be taken away unknown to Madame’]. Evelyn (2006), pp. 617–18.

8For Henriette-Anne’s 1671 inventory see: Montaiglon (1879).

9LR5/63, fols. 97–100, The National Archive, London; cited by Griffey (2015), p. 219, n. 137.

10‘Goods of his Royal Highnesse the Duke of York at Culford Hall in the charge of Madam Elliott: 23 Octob.^r 1671’and ‘Goods of his Roy.^ll Highnesse … In the custody and Charge of Phillip Kinnersley Yeom of his R.^ll High.^s wardrobe of Beds: the first of June 1674’ MS 891, fol 17, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Culford Hall in Suffolk was the duke’s country residence. The inventory records household furnishings across the estate of the Duke of York.

11See Barclay (2010).

12Ibid, p. 5.

13Ibid, p. 10.

14Ibid, p. 10, n. 79.

15For the career at the Restoration court of this important individual see https://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/directory-of-british-picture-restorers/british-picture-restorers-1600-1950-w

16Barclay (2010), p. 10.

17Harleian MS 1890, British Library, London; Barclay (2010), p. 3, n. 15, who considers the binding of the manuscript dates to 1688–9.

18Ibid, pp. 2–3.

19The manuscript is in the Office of The Queen’s Surveyor of Pictures, St James’s Palace, with OM 19, ‘An Inventory of the Pictures, Figures and Statues, in the Royal Palaces of White-Hall, Windsor Castle, Hampton Court, Somerset House and St James’; after f. 40 ‘King William’s Pictures’.

20Barclay (2010), p. 6.

21Ibid, p. 10.

22The Kings Pictures at Kensington House’, fol. 10 and fol. 1 respectively Harleian MS 5150, British Library, London.

23For an account of the paintings taken to Het Loo, and a useful bibliography of all the documents associated with William III’s collections, see Brenninkmeyer-de Rooij et al (1988). For Constantijn Huygens’ account of the Royal Collection on the accession of William and Mary, see Huygens, (2009).

24Brotton (2006), p. 436.

25Barclay (2010), p. 7.

26Vertue (1929–30), p. 66.

27Dallaway, Vertue, and Walpole (1827), p. 79. I have not been able to locate the London Gazette advertisement to which they refer.

28Vertue (1935–6), p. 100.

29Harleian MS 1890, British Library, London. The inventory is signed by William Chiffinch; fol. 69 itemizes ‘Pictures of the Kings in the Queen Dowagers Custody.’ The inventory also lists paintings belonging to James II, that had not been part of the collection of Charles II, at Windsor (fol. 82) and Whitehall (fol. 83).

30This information was kindly relayed to the author by David Taylor, Curator of pictures and sculpture, National Trust, and expert on Catherine of Braganza; 1 May 2009.

31Ibid.

32‘Duras or DURFORT, Louis, Earl of Feversham (1640?–1709)’, Gordon Goodwin, Old DNB, 1888. Duras signed the inventory of the Duke of York’s yacht, 1674.

33However, the editors of the Walpole Society index of Vertue’s notebooks say Sheffield was the Lord Chamberlain who was bribed with a picture, c. 1689. Vertue Note Books, Volume VI, Index to Volumes I- V, The Walpole Society, Vol. 29 (Oxford, 1947), p. 28.

34Vertue also says that Sir John Stanley’s actions saved the pictures and tapestries; see Vertue (1935–6), p. 77.

35Vertue (1929–30), p. 97. Vertue details many paintings in Buckingham House, one of which he says he had taken down for a closer look, but he does not mention a Salvator Mundi.

36Harleian MS 1890, British Library, London.

37For the interim administration of government between 11 and 28 December 1688 see Beddard (1988). William and Mary were formally tendered the crown on 13 February 1689. I am very grateful to Dr Beddard, my former college supervisor, for his consideration of an early draft of this chapter, and for confirming that it is plausible that Mulgrave may have removed the painting during this period.

38Myrone (2004; online edn., 2008).

39Lugt 1269.

40According to an annotation in the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie copy of the sale catalogue; author’s personal observation made from examination of the original document.

41Sir Anthony van Dyck, The five eldest children of Charles I, 1637, Royal Collection. The painting hung in the Yellow Bedchamber at Whitehall; MS Hunter 238, fol. 71, Glasgow University Library. Barclay (2010), p. 6; Millar et al (2004), IV.62, p. 479: ‘possibly given by James II to the Countess of Dorchester, later married to the 1st Earl of Portmore; bought by George II, 1765, from 2nd Earl of Portmore’. The Countess of Dorchester was Catherine Sedley, the mother of Catherine Darnley, Duchess of Buckingham. Interestingly the 1763 Buckingham sale catalogue itemizes a painting of the same description, attributed to ‘Old Stone’ (Symon Stone, the expert van Dyck copyist), lot 59, which sold for the very high sum of £16 10s. Could this have been a copy of the Dorchester/Portmore painting, or perhaps, one and the same item, bought via the 1763 sale? Did Stephen Slaughter act for his employer, King George III, at the Buckingham sale, purchasing items known to have belonged to James II?

42Millar (1978), cat.no. 44, p. 62.

43MS 1112461r, The Surveyor’s Office, St James’s Palace, London.

44MS 1112461s, The Surveyor’s Office, St James’s Palace, London.

45‘An account of the pictures and paintings in Buckinghamhouse, St James Park’, Harleian MS 6344, British Library, London; SHEFF/C/17 (mid–eighteenth-century inventory of furniture from Buckingham House), Sheffield MSS, Lincoln Record Office, Lincoln.

Epilogue

1For some of the reviews, see Chapter 1, note 61, above.

2See Syson and Keith (2011) and Zöllner (2018), cat. XXXII. I am grateful to Frank Zöllner for sharing details of the latest version of his catalogue before its publication.

3For the drawings, see Plates 6 & 7.

4The story of the events around the purchase is outlined in Kemp (2018), chapter 7.

5To accompany the sale in New York, Christies’s issued a lavishly illustrated book: Gouzer and Wetmore (2017).

6See especially Ben Lewis, The Last Leonardo. The Secret Lives of the World’s Most Expensive Painting (London, 2019).

Appendix

1Millar (1972), p. 55.

2Ibid, p. 57.

3Ibid, p. 63.

4Ibid, p. 72.

5Millar (1972), p. 76. That is, according the description of the immediately preceding item, ‘gold and silver cloth tapestries of the History of Vulcan and Venus, which the queen took to France; not in the charge of Browne.’ These were spectacular silk and gilt-metal-wrapped thread Mortlake tapestries designed by Francis Clein, c. 1620–5. An example survives in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London: Neptune and Cupid Plead for the Release of the Lovers. Why the Trustees to the Sale should disburse goods already taken out of the country by Queen Henrietta Maria is puzzling. Griffey (2015, p. 154, n. 15) also considers this anomalous: ‘It is unclear why they were not in Somerset House under Browne’s keeping. The only time she could have “taken them” before 1651 would have been in 1642, when she went to The Hague, or 1644, when she fled to France from south-west England. Others could have brought them to her on several occasions. This raises the question of whether many things were sold that were not in the holding of the commissioners, how such items were evaluated, and why someone would buy them.’ Could the wording ‘suitable to a Suite’ mean they were the remaining part of a larger suite of tapestry? It may be pertinent that, on 16 February 1652, Capt. Stone petitioned the Council of State ‘for delivery of some hangings of the late king, sold to him and others, referred to Mr Love, Mr Holland, Mr Masham and Mr Hay’ (Green 1875, p. 143). It is not ascertained whether his petition met with any satisfaction. Among the lists of returns made at the Restoration of the Crown in 1660 is a note dated 1 May stating that ‘Francis Trion sold six pieces of arras, the story of Vulcan and Venus, to a French jeweller for 300l’, calendared in (Historical Manuscripts Commission 1879, p. 88).

6Millar (1972), p. 101.

7Ibid, p. 126.

8Ibid, p. 139. The 1660 returns state that this sculpture was from gardens at Whitehall or Hampton Court, and it was made of brass (Historical Manuscripts Commission 1879, p. 90).

9Millar (1972), p. 139. The following items (33–6) are clearly paintings, and indeed Stone’s 1660 inventory identifies them as such, however the Contractors’ Inventory places them under the heading of sculptures from Greenwich.

10Millar (1972), p. 139.

11Ibid.

12Ibid.

13Ibid. The 1660 returns state that this sculpture was from gardens at Whitehall or Hampton Court, and it was made of marble. (Historical Manuscripts Commission 1879, p. 90).

14Ibid.

15Ibid.

16Millar (1972), p. 140.

17Ibid.

18Ibid.

19Ibid.

20Ibid.

21Ibid.

22Ibid, p. 189.

23Ibid.

24Ibid.

25Ibid.

26Ibid, p. 194.

27Ibid, p. 197.

28Ibid, p. 199.

29Ibid.

30Ibid, p. 200.

31Ibid, p. 202.

32Ibid, p. 204.

33Ibid, p. 270.

34Ibid, p. 278.

35Ibid.

36Ibid.

37Ibid.

38Ibid.

39Ibid.

40Ibid, p. 279.

41Ibid.

42Ibid.

43Ibid, p. 280.

44Ibid.

45Ibid.

46Ibid.

47Ibid.

48Ibid.

49Ibid.

50Ibid, p. 299.

51Ibid, p. 301.

52Ibid.

53Ibid.

54Ibid, p. 301.

55Ibid, p. 302.

56Ibid.

57Ibid.

58Ibid.

59Ibid, p. 303.

60Ibid.

61Ibid.

62Ibid.

63Ibid.

64Ibid.

65Ibid.

66Ibid.

67Ibid.

68Ibid, p. 304.

69Ibid.

70Ibid, p. 332.

71Ibid.

72Ibid.

73Ibid.

74Items 475–86: Millar (1972), p. 361.

75Items 487–96: Millar (1972), pp. 361–2.

76Items 497–501: Millar (1972), p. 362.

77Millar (1972), p. 365.

78Ibid, p. 366.