.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
THE ART OF CHINESE MIRROR PAINTING
Although glass vessels had long been made in China, the production of flat glass was not accomplished until the 19th century. Even in the Imperial glass workshops, set up in Beijing in 1696 under the supervision of the Bavarian Jesuit Kilian Stumpf (1655-1720), plate glass for use in mirrors and windows was not successfully produced. As a result, from the mid-18th century onwards, when reverse glass painting was already popular in Europe, sheets of both clear and mirrored glass were sent to Canton from Europe. The practice of painting on mirrors developed in China after 1715, and has historically been credited to the arrival of the Jesuit missionary Father Castiglione in Beijing. He found favor with the Emperors Yongzheng and Qianlong and was entrusted with the decoration of the Imperial Garden in Beijing. He learned to paint in oil on glass, a technique that was already practiced in Europe but which was unknown in China in 1715. Chinese artists, already expert in painting and calligraphy, took up the practice, tracing the outlines of their designs on the back of the plate and, using a special steel implement, scraping away the mirror backing to reveal glass that could then be painted. Glass paintings were made almost entirely for export, fueled by the mania in Europe for all things Chinese.
Many Cantonese painters took inspiration from their surroundings, and the subject-matter of many mirror paintings are scenes from along the Pearl River. Firsthand accounts of Canton in the 18th century describe it as fantastically colorful, bustling with commerce and people from foreign lands, with exotic fruit trees leaning over the water and towering pagodas in the distance. The banks of the Pearl River were dotted by the luxurious dwellings that belonged to wealthy merchants and city leaders. Such imagery is frequently depicted in mirror paintings, along with sumptuously dressed members of high society at leisurely pursuits. Once in Europe, the best reverse-painted mirrors were often placed in elaborate giltwood frames in keeping with the contemporary taste. The most notable examples include one frame designed by Robert Adam for Harewood House in the neoclassical taste, and made by Thomas Chippendale. There are other examples at Saltram House that exemplify the exuberant rococo taste, and were hung on Chinese wallpaper.
THE DITCHLEY PARK PROVENANCE
The present frame is from a group of nearly identical frames all sharing the same iconography but with varying dimensions and thought to be originally commissioned for Ditchley Park, Oxfordshire. Ditchley was largely built by George Lee, 2nd Earl of Lichfield, whose mother, Lady Charlotte Fitzroy was the daughter of Charles II by the Duchess of Cleveland. Work began in 1720 and continued until the 2nd Earl's death in 1743 at the age of 52. The 3rd Earl died in 1772 and was succeeded by his uncle who was killed hunting in 1776. Ditchley was then inherited by his niece, Lady Charlotte Lee, who married the 11th Viscount Dillon, and they were responsible for adding the frames, likely for the bedroom apartments. Ditchley remained in the Lee-Dillon family until it was sold to Nancy Tree (later Lancaster) and her then husband Ronald Tree in 1933. Unlike many great houses, it was not subjected to 19th century alterations, thus remaining almost entirely Georgian in style with its grandeur and centuries of history intact. When the Trees purchased Ditchley they acquired much of the original furniture as well, considering it integral to the historical significance of the house and thus irreplaceable. In Nancy’s biography she claims they bought the house with everything, ‘lock, stock, and barrel’ (B. Robert, Nancy Lancaster: Her Life, Her World, Her Art, New York, 1996, pp. 197-198). Ronald Tree married his second wife, Marietta, in 1946; Marietta lived only briefly at Ditchley, as Tree was forced to sell it in 1947.
Thus far, at least four frames from the Ditchley group have been identified:
1. The present frame.
2. A frame with an associated Chinese mirror painting depicting a lady on a boat, and another lady reclining on the shore beside the river:
Anonymous Sale; Christie's, London, 28 June 1979, lot 15 (sold with a plain mirror).
The Collection of Norman Gay; Christie's, London, 28 June 1984, lot 9 (sold with the associated mirror painting).
3. A frame with an associated Chinese mirror painting depicting a shepherdess and a falconer:
With Mallett, London, circa 1982.
The Collection of Patricia Kluge; Sotheby's, House Sale, 8-9 June 2010, lot 30, for $116,500.
4. A frame with a plain mirror:
The Collection of Marietta Tree; Christie's, New York, 17 October 1992, lot 126.
This frame is now in the Gerstenfeld Collection (see: E. Lennox-Boyd, ed., Masterpieces of English Furniture The Gerstenfeld Collection, London, 1998, p. 234, fig. 84) where it is described as probably being commissioned by Lady Charlotte Lee and her husband Henry Dillon, 11th Viscount.
POSSIBLE MAKERS: JOHN LINNELL
The design and execution of this superb frame, along with the others previously mentioned, is believed to have been by John Linnell (d.1796). John, together with his father William (d.1763) collaborated at Ditchley in the 1750s, and an examination of Linnell's body of work reveals several designs related to the present frame, as noted in Helena Hayward's article, 'The Drawings of John Linnell in the Victoria and Albert Museum,' published in The Journal of the Furniture History Society, vol. V, 1969. Notably, specific elements found on the present frame, such as the lyre within a laurel wreath on the apron, are depicted in a drawing for a girandole by Linnell from circa 1760-65 (see: op. cit., fig. 81). The overall foliate S-scrolled sides and cresting closely resemble those in a drawing of a pier mirror dating to circa 1774 (op. cit., fig. 97), exhibiting similar proportions and overall composition. Further akin drawings include a long mirror frame from circa 1771 (op. cit., fig. 96) and another mirror frame from circa 1773 (illustrated, op. cit., fig. 89).