.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Regarded in the nineteenth century as by Watteau and described by Scharf (loc. cit.), as 'of the finest quality', the present picture was catalogued as his work when sold in these Rooms in 1895 and was bought for the considerable sum of 1,000 guineas by Agnew's, who, according to Bunt (loc. cit.), had already recognised it as the work of Pater.
The picture at Dulwich (no. 51 in the 1984-5 exhibition, see literature above) is now generally accepted as Watteau's original and dated circa 1716-17.
Pater frequently made copies after Watteau, and Ingersoll-Smouse (op. cit., p. 86) suggests that he may have executed up to half a dozen of the present subject; one is listed in his posthumous inventory and two or three are mentioned in the catalogues of the Montullé and Lebrun Sales (22 December 1783 and 11ff. April 1791 respectively). The only Pater of the present composition which has hitherto been identified is that in the Wallace Collection (Rosenberg, op. cit., p. 370 and fig. 3) in which the male dancer differs from that in the prototype. In his 1989 catalogue of the Wallace collection, Ingamells refers to the present work as 'an entirely accurate copy by Pater'.
The picture at Dulwich (no. 51 in the 1984-5 exhibition, see literature above) is now generally accepted as Watteau's original and dated circa 1716-17.
Pater frequently made copies after Watteau, and Ingersoll-Smouse (op. cit., p. 86) suggests that he may have executed up to half a dozen of the present subject; one is listed in his posthumous inventory and two or three are mentioned in the catalogues of the Montullé and Lebrun Sales (22 December 1783 and 11ff. April 1791 respectively). The only Pater of the present composition which has hitherto been identified is that in the Wallace Collection (Rosenberg, op. cit., p. 370 and fig. 3) in which the male dancer differs from that in the prototype. In his 1989 catalogue of the Wallace collection, Ingamells refers to the present work as 'an entirely accurate copy by Pater'.