.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This dignified portrait on panel is one of only two signed life-size likenesses of the King painted by Cornelis Johnson. Testament to the rich culture of artistic exchange that occurred at the court of Charles I, it was created against the backdrop of one of the most thrilling chapters of English portraiture.
Following a successful career in London, Johnson was appointed ‘picture-drawer’ to the King in 1632, the same year this portrait was completed. Also in 1632, Anthony van Dyck returned to London and was employed as ‘Principal Painter in Ordinary’ to Charles I, initiating an explosive shift in the visual culture and patronage of the Stuart court. Van Dyck absorbed the majority of royal commissions, in lieu of Johnson and his contemporary Daniel Mytens, who had previously been called upon for portraits of the King and his family. Van Dyck’s first commission following his appointment was a group portrait. This monumental work, known as ‘The Greate Peece’, hung prominently at Whitehall Palace (Windsor Castle, Royal Collection) and was one of a group of paintings by the artist that revolutionised portraiture in England, combining an age-old visual statement on the power and lineage of the royal family with a novel and informal domesticity (see fig. 1 for a Studio variant). In response, Johnson adopted elements of van Dyck’s painterly models to create his own original and distinguished portraits of the royal family.
The present work appears to have been directly modelled on the King’s likeness in ‘The Great Peece’. Although not painted from life, this portrait is not a straightforward copy. Johnson appropriates the general design of the head, but departs from van Dyck's painting to delicately describe the detail of the sitter's hair and adapt the costume, where we see his hand clearly in the characteristic meticulousness of the lace collar and black satin doublet, framed by a feigned oval. Close analysis reveals that the blue ribbon with Lesser George and Star of the Order of the Garter were added later, possibly by the artist himself. Without these conspicuous trappings of royalty, the portrait would have appeared more intimate and human. This was possibly at the request of the presumed patron, Sir Edward Barrett, a friend of the King’s favourite, The Duke of Buckingham. Barrett was knighted by James I in 1608, and given a Scottish Peerage by Charles I in 1627. A year later, in 1628, he was made Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from 1629 until his death in 1644, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
This is not an isolated example of Johnson assimilating van Dyck; the latter’s influence on a small-scale group of portraits of the royal family painted by Johnson in the 1630s has been previously noted (Hearn, op. cit., pp. 22-29), including a painting of Charles II, which also draws on the composition of ‘The Great Peece’. In each case, Johnson appears to have sought initial inspiration for the design of his painting from van Dyck, adapting it to suit his own style. It is interesting to note that this exchange of inspiration appears to have travelled both ways; as Karen Hearn has indicated, van Dyck adopted conceits from Johnson’s work in his own portraiture (op. cit., p. 33). The other known life-size portrait of Charles I by Johnson is a full-length, signed and dated 1631 (Derbyshire, Chatsworth). It is clearly based on a type by Mytens, providing further evidence of the artistic collaborations and cross-pollination at the Stuart court (see O. Millar, ‘An Attribution to Cornelius Johnson Reinstated’, The Burlington Magazine, XC, November 1948, pp. 322-323).
We are grateful to Karen Hearn for her assistance in the cataloguing of this lot.
Following a successful career in London, Johnson was appointed ‘picture-drawer’ to the King in 1632, the same year this portrait was completed. Also in 1632, Anthony van Dyck returned to London and was employed as ‘Principal Painter in Ordinary’ to Charles I, initiating an explosive shift in the visual culture and patronage of the Stuart court. Van Dyck absorbed the majority of royal commissions, in lieu of Johnson and his contemporary Daniel Mytens, who had previously been called upon for portraits of the King and his family. Van Dyck’s first commission following his appointment was a group portrait. This monumental work, known as ‘The Greate Peece’, hung prominently at Whitehall Palace (Windsor Castle, Royal Collection) and was one of a group of paintings by the artist that revolutionised portraiture in England, combining an age-old visual statement on the power and lineage of the royal family with a novel and informal domesticity (see fig. 1 for a Studio variant). In response, Johnson adopted elements of van Dyck’s painterly models to create his own original and distinguished portraits of the royal family.
The present work appears to have been directly modelled on the King’s likeness in ‘The Great Peece’. Although not painted from life, this portrait is not a straightforward copy. Johnson appropriates the general design of the head, but departs from van Dyck's painting to delicately describe the detail of the sitter's hair and adapt the costume, where we see his hand clearly in the characteristic meticulousness of the lace collar and black satin doublet, framed by a feigned oval. Close analysis reveals that the blue ribbon with Lesser George and Star of the Order of the Garter were added later, possibly by the artist himself. Without these conspicuous trappings of royalty, the portrait would have appeared more intimate and human. This was possibly at the request of the presumed patron, Sir Edward Barrett, a friend of the King’s favourite, The Duke of Buckingham. Barrett was knighted by James I in 1608, and given a Scottish Peerage by Charles I in 1627. A year later, in 1628, he was made Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from 1629 until his death in 1644, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
This is not an isolated example of Johnson assimilating van Dyck; the latter’s influence on a small-scale group of portraits of the royal family painted by Johnson in the 1630s has been previously noted (Hearn, op. cit., pp. 22-29), including a painting of Charles II, which also draws on the composition of ‘The Great Peece’. In each case, Johnson appears to have sought initial inspiration for the design of his painting from van Dyck, adapting it to suit his own style. It is interesting to note that this exchange of inspiration appears to have travelled both ways; as Karen Hearn has indicated, van Dyck adopted conceits from Johnson’s work in his own portraiture (op. cit., p. 33). The other known life-size portrait of Charles I by Johnson is a full-length, signed and dated 1631 (Derbyshire, Chatsworth). It is clearly based on a type by Mytens, providing further evidence of the artistic collaborations and cross-pollination at the Stuart court (see O. Millar, ‘An Attribution to Cornelius Johnson Reinstated’, The Burlington Magazine, XC, November 1948, pp. 322-323).
We are grateful to Karen Hearn for her assistance in the cataloguing of this lot.