'Reining toasts': portraits of beauties by Van Dyck and Dahl at Petworth

Christopher Rowell

In country houses, portraits are often found in sets, and Petworth House, West Sussex, is no exception. (1) Such accumulations tend, however, to be haphazard, prompted by dynastic or aesthetic considerations, rather than being sets with a particular theme. This article considers the extent to which Algernon Percy (1602-68), 10th Earl of Northumberland's collecting of female portraits by Sir Anthony van Dyck (1599-1641) emulated the earlier Continental tradition of compiling sets of portraits of beautiful women, such as the one commissioned c. 1600 by Vincenzo I Gonzaga, 4th Duke of Mantua (1562-1612) from Frans Pourbus the Younger (1569-1622) and Sir Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640). It also reviews the evidence for the original display of the Petworth Van Dycks, and looks briefly at how the series was extended by Sir Peter Lely (1610-80). Also considered are the portraits of court ladies of around 1700 by Michael Dahl (16597-1743) and Sir Godfrey Kneller (1646-1723) which hang in the Petworth Beauty Room. They were, more clearly, intended as a set of beautiful women of the court, and it is possible to establish how they were originally arranged, before the Beauty Room was radically altered in 1826-28 (Fig. 8).

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

Visitors to Petworth have always remarked upon the number and quality of the Van Dycks, tending to concentrate on the beautiful portraits of Countesses. By the 1820s, these were in the White and Gold Room (Fig. 5), where they were admired by J.M.W. Turner (1775-1851), who not only sketched them hanging there but even painted a copy of one of them. (2) The Dahls in the adjoining room were usually compared unfavourably with the Van Dycks. P.G. Patmore, the author of British Galleries of Art (1824), for example, described passing through the Beauty Room 'containing some of Charles's Beauties--all alike--'to [the White and Gold Room] incomparably the richest and most charming room in the gallery [i.e. at Petworth]', (3) which housed Van Dyck's five Countesses, while in 1828 Thomas Creevey (1768-1838) dismissed the Beauty Room as containing 'a quantity of ugly women ... by Dahl'. (4)

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Almost all the Petworth Van Dycks (5) were commissioned, purchased or inherited by the 10th Earl of Northumberland, the founder of the Petworth collection of pictures. Northumberland--as Jeremy Wood has pointed out in two important and pioneering articles (6)--was one of the most considerable English patrons and collectors between the 1630s and his death in 1668. George Vertue (1648-1756) described him as 'a lover and promoter of Art'. (7) During the Civil War, he pursued an ambivalent and pacific line, earning the respect and suspicion of both sides. He conducted the Parliamentary negotiations with the King, and as the ward of the younger royal children, commissioned Lely to paint their great portrait still at Petworth (no. 149), which he lent to the King in his captivity at Hampton Court. Northumberland opposed both Charles's execution and the prosecution of the regicides. His collecting and patronage needs to be seen in the context not only of Petworth, but of his other houses. Until 1750, when the Percy inheritance was split up, Petworth was part of the vast Northumberland estates, which included--amongst many other houses--Alnwick Castle, the most prominent in the north, and Syon House, the family's Thamesside villa. However, in the 10th Earl's day, the cream of the collection, including almost all the Van Dyck portraits now at Petworth or in the present Duke of Northumberland's collection, was in Northumberland House at Charing Cross, London.

With the exception of the King and Philip, 4th Lord Wharton (1613-96), no-one else owned more pictures by Van Dyck, including-according to Bellori--a lost (and distinctly papist) Crucifixion. (8) At Northumberland House in 1671, there were fifteen autograph Van Dyck portraits, (including the two groups now at Petworth valued at 60 [pounds sterling] each, and twelve three-quarter lengths at 30 [pounds sterling]) as well as twelve Lelys and the Earl's most important Northern, Spanish and Italian pictures, including Titians now in the National Gallery, in the Wallace Collection and at Alnwick. A similar mix of pictures--on the whole of lesser quality--was listed at Petworth, which greatly outranked Syon both in the size and quality of its collection. (9)

The nucleus of Northumberland's paintings by Van Dyck is the group of portraits that we can assume he commissioned himself. In 1635/36, he paid Van Dyck 200 [pounds sterling] for 'Pictures of his Lo[rdshi]p and Countesse & divers others', (10) and there are other payments for unspecified pictures. These presumably included the family group of Northumberland, his first wife and their daughter (Fig. 1); the portraits of Northumberland himself; and the posthumous portraits of his grandfather and father, respectively the 8th and 9th Earls. It is a moot point whether he commissioned the portraits of his sisters and the other Countesses, because apart from the 1671 inventory, a shorter list of pictures seen by Richard Symonds at Northumberland House in 1652, (11) and other bits and pieces of archival evidence, there is no certain information about how Northumberland acquired his Van Dycks. This has a bearing on whether the famous set of Countesses (and other female portraits) was compiled with an eye to the tradition, originating in sixteenth-century Italy, of putting together portraits of beautiful women, (12) or whether it was simply an accumulation of portraits of relations and friends (or indeed of portraits of beautiful women, beautifully painted by Van Dyck). Certainly, Cardinal Mazarin (1602-61)--who owned twenty-four Van Dycks (mainly portraits)--simply required them to be 'originals and well done'. (13)

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

How, then, were Van Dyck's portraits displayed at Northumberland House? The earliest indication of the content and arrangement of the collection is the list drawn up by Richard Symonds in 1652, (14) when he was shown the pictures by the 10th Earl's curator, Symon Stone, a painter of flower pictures, portraits and a well-known copyist. Symonds listed forty-three portraits, including at least ten Van Dycks, and other pictures including Titian's famous Vendramin family, then called The senators (National Gallery). He listed the Van Dycks as a group--as indeed they were inventoried by Stone in 1671 (15)--which could mean that they were hung together en masse. This is also suggested by the fact that in Symonds's 1652 list, Van Dyck's oblong format half-length portrait of Northumberland as Lord High Admiral, with an anchor (Collection of the Duke of Northumberland, Alnwick Castle)--clearly intended as an overdoor or overmantel (16)--is placed between the two Van Dyck group portraits now at Petworth (Northumberland and his family [no. 289] and Lords Goring and Newport [no.300]). Perhaps the two group portraits flanked a door or a chimneypiece, with other portraits hanging above. Certainly the inventory description of 'Another lady above in a light blew garm[en]t' (presumably Van Dyck's portrait of the Countess of Bedford [no. 218; Collection of Lord Egremont, Petworth House]) (17) indicates that it was hung above the portrait of the 10th Earl, his wife and child (no. 289). Here it would have balanced the portrait of Mrs William Murray (Fig. 3) (no. 295), (18) placed above the double portrait of Lords Goring and Newport, with the portraits of the Countess of Newport (Fig. 2) (no. 288) (19) and her sister, Mrs Endymion Porter (Collection of the Duke of Northumberland, Alnwick Castle), hanging nearby. The other adjacent Van Dyck portraits included the posthumous portraits of the 8th (20) and 9th Earls of Northumberland (nos. 285 and 223), Lord (Henry) Percy of Alnwick (the 10th Earl's brother; no. 127), and the unfinished equestrian portrait of Charles I (no. 124). The female portraits were not, therefore, hung separately as a series, but rather among Northumberland's other Van Dycks, as in the 4th Lord Wharton's collection.

[FIGURES 2-3 OMITTED]

The 4th Lord Wharton's collection of Van Dycks, hung in purpose-built galleries first at Wooburn and then at Upper Winchendon, Buckinghamshire, is also sometimes thought of as a 'gallery of beautiful women', (21) but it too contained portraits of Wharton's female relations and friends, which were hung alongside male family portraits and those of Charles I and Henrietta Maria (and later of Charles II and James II). (22) Northumberland's acquisition, from Van Dyck's studio after the painter's death in 1641, of the unfinished equestrian portrait of the King (no. 124), (23) may have been intended to fulfil a similar role in his pantheon of portraits. There are many other instances of royal portraits being placed among sets of family portraits in long galleries--the gallery at Ham House constructed in the 1630s, which contains portraits of both Charles I and Charles II among two generations of portraits mainly by or after Van Dyck and Lely, springs to mind. (24)

Between 1652 and 1671, Northumberland's collection had not only grown in size, but had gone through various rearrangements, judging by the entries in the Earl's accounts which mention the framing, hanging and packing of pictures and their movement between the Earl's houses (mainly from London to Petworth). (25) A fundamental change in the display of the pictures at Northumberland House seems to have been made soon after Symonds's list of 1652. In 1652-53 many pictures were apparently in store, and in 1654 Symon Stone received the first of what became an annual payment for the cleaning, heating and airing of 'the picture roome'. (26) In view of the fact that no other locations for pictures are mentioned in the accounts, this implies a picture gallery of the type depicted in David Teniers the Younger's (1610-90) famous series of views of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm's (1614-61) collection in the 1650s. (27) Teniers--who like Symon Stone was the curator, or keeper, of the collection--gives an idealised, but essentially accurate, impression of how a plethora of pictures was arranged, with their frames touching, in such a gallery. Some of Northumberland's frames were bought from Van Dyck in 1638/39, (28) and were the usual mix of ebony and gilt frames evident in the inventories of contemporary collections such as those of Charles I and of William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart (c. 1600-55), at Ham. The references in the accounts of 1657-58 to '11 ounces of green silke string to hang up pictures' (a possible reference to the picture room), and to '10 ounces of redd for looking glasses', (29) means that at least two rooms at Northumberland House were respectively green and red, traditional colours for picture galleries, and typical of contemporary collections. A case in point was the Duke of Buckingham's York House, adjoining Northumberland House, which the '10th Earl rented from 1640 to 1647, acquiring several important pictures in the process, and which had rooms hung in green and red. (30) Another example is the Green Closet at Ham, a unique survival of a 1630s cabinet room which retains many of its pictures in their original ebony, gilt or carved wood frames. (31)

Do the present frames of the Petworth Van Dycks provide any further clues as to the arrangement of the portraits at Northumberland House? Eleven of the twelve three-quarter lengths listed in 1671 (32)--including all the females--are framed alike in carved giltwood livery frames (Figs. 4 and 5), so these are presumably the eleven Van Dycks that were restored and packed up in 1689-90 by Parry Walton, to whom the frames were accordingly attributed by Gervase Jackson-Stops. (33) However, they may be earlier, and Northumberland certainly paid Henry Norris for three 'Carved and guilt' frames in 1661/62 and for four more in 1664/65. (34) Also, their style has affinities to the frame depicted around the portrait of Northumberland's sister, the Countess of Carlisle (no. 225; Collection of Lord Egremont, Petworth House), in an engraving by Pierre Lombart (1613-82), one of a set of ten Countesses and two Earls after Van Dyck that Lombart produced in England, and printed in London and Paris, around 1660 and before 1663. (35) These eleven frames--more French in style than English--could therefore represent a 1660s re-framing by the 10th Earl, consistent with the display of the Van Dycks en masse, as suggested by the 1671 inventory. The two group portraits (nos. 289 and 300) are framed differently in a matching pair of giltwood Marotesque frames of c. 1690. (36)

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Of Lombart's influential and extremely high quality engravings, four were after Van Dyck's Countesses in Northumberland's collection: the Countesses of Bedford (Fig. 5), Carlisle, Devonshire (no. 226; Collection of Lord Egremont, Petworth House) and Sunderland (Fig. 5) (no. 305; Collection of Lord Egremont, Petworth House). Lombart's Countesses series was probably influenced by a fashion for sets of small painted copies after Van Dyck ladies. In 1638-39, shortly after they were painted, four of Northumberland's Van Dyck portraits (the Countesses of Bedford, Carlisle, and Sunderland, and Mrs Murray [Fig. 2]) were incorporated in a set of twelve reduced oil copies, which Queen Henrietta Maria probably presented in 1642 to Amalia von Solms, consort of the Stadholder of the Netherlands. (37) The series--now in the Museum Schloss Mosigkau, Dessau--Mosigkau, and still in their original matching auricular frames--is attributed to Remigius van Leemput (1607-75), one of Van Dyck's studio assistants. Three similar 'galleries of beauties' are also credited to Van Leemput (one is at Hampton Court). Amalia yon Solms hung these 'Twelve small paintings of English ladies, all decorated with gilded frames' at the Huis ten Bosch, and had already commissioned a 'gallery of beauties' from Gerrit van Honthorst (1590-1656) between 1632 and 1640, consisting of no fewer than twenty-four portraits (twenty-three being of ladies of the Court, and the remaining one an equestrian portrait of Willem II). (38) Similar galleries in France include those at Bussy-Rabutin, Burgundy (assembled 1666-82) and at the Chateau de Pibrac, near Toulouse (begun before 1643), (39) which still retains a reduced copy of Van Dyck's Countess of Bedford at Petworth.

Lombart's engravings of Countesses proved popular, and remained in print. In 1708, Simon Gribelin described the set as 'being one of the best performances in graving, and very proper to adorn rooms, closets etc', and subsequent advertisements for it appeared in 1736 and 1743. (40) In about 1730, Vertue described the Van Dyck Countesses at Petworth as 'several Ladyes 1/2 len by Vandyke. gravd by Lombard'. (41) Lombart's series undoubtedly helped to establish the fashion for sets of portraits such as Lely's 'Windsor beauties' and Kneller's 'Hampton Court beauties' (which was also reproduced in mezzotint). The inclusion of the four Pet-worth portraits among the ten engravings after Van Dyck's Countesses has certainly added to their fame, (42) and has also encouraged the idea that Northumberland--like Lombart and the Van Dyck Copyists--was compiling a set of female portraits in the continental tradition. This may indeed have been in his mind, but the fact remains that most of Northumberland's Van Dycks were of his relations. The exceptions--the portraits of the Countess of Bedford, Mrs Murray (wife of a fellow collector, and a childhood friend of Charles O, Mrs Porter (wife of Van Dyck's close friend Endymion Porter), and the Countess of Newport (Mrs Porter's sister)--were all of people in Northumberland's orbit, and could have been acquired for that reason, or simply as fine examples of portraits by Van Dyck that may have come onto the market during the Civil War. Some pictures, such as the portrait of his sister Lady Carlisle (no. 225), listed in 1671, were probably inherited.

Northumberland was also an early patron and encourager of Lely. As Sir Ohver Millar first pointed out, (43) the composition of Lely's portrait of Northumberland's fifth daughter Elizabeth, later Countess of Essex (no. 524), derives from Van Dyck's Countess of Sunderland, one of the pictures engraved by Lombart: both were hanging in Northumberland House in 1671. There were fourteen portraits by Lely in the Northumberland collection in 1671 (44) of which eight were of women, which suggests a conscious continuation of a cycle of female portraits, building on those painted by Van Dyck. But again most are members of the 10th Earl's family--not famous or beautiful women per se.

When we turn to Charles Seymour (1662-1748), 6th Duke of Somerset's commissioning of the series of eight female portraits in the Petworth Beauty Room (seven by Dahl and one by Kneller), there can be little doubt that he was influenced by the prolific patronage of Van Dyck and Lely on the part of his wife's grandfather, the 10th Earl. Somerset certainly had an interest in Caroline portraiture--he bought, for example, the famous triple portrait by Dobson (Collection of the Duke of Northumberland, Alnwick Castle) of the artist and two friends, (45) and even gave Vertue his opinion about the identity of one of the sitters. He must also have been aware of Lombart's engravings of Countesses. However, by the end of the seventeenth century, there were other potential influences. As well as Italian, French, German and Dutch portrait cycles of beautiful women, such as the much-copied series by Jacob Ferdinand Voet (1639-1700?) painted in the 1670s for the Chigi family palace at Ariccia, (46)there were Lely's 'Windsor beauties' of the 1660s, one of whom was the Duchess of Somerset's mother, and the similar set at Althorp, commissioned from Lely around 1666 by the 2nd Earl of Sunderland, the son of the 10th Earl of Northumberland's niece, the Countess of Sunderland, one of Van Dyck's Petworth Countesses (no. 305). (47) However, Queen Mary's commission to Kneller in 1691 for the so-called 'Hampton Court beauties' is the real forerunner of the Petworth Beauty Room, even though Dahl's Petworth portraits, according to Richard Jeffree, 'possess a decorative, languorous glamour that recalls Lely rather than Kneller.' (48)

Kneller's 'Hampton Court beauties', according to Daniel Defoe, portray 'the principal Ladies attending upon her Majesty, or who were frequently in her Retinue'. (49) The sitters were chosen specifically for their beauty--Queen Mary ignored the advice that this could arouse the jealousy of those excluded--just as in 1700, the future Queen Anne resolved that she would only choose 'reigning toasts [i.e. beauties]' (50) to be her maids of honour, so as to cheer up her previously 'melancholly' (51) drawing room. In 1701-1703, after the demolition of Queen Mary's Water Gallery, where the portraits were hung among the Queen's famous collection of blue and white china, Kneller's 'Hampton Court beauties' were moved to their present location in the 'Eating Room below Stairs', which served--like the Petworth Beauty Room--as the 'constant dineing-roome'. (52) Given the Duke of Somerset's prominent position at court since Charles II's reign (as Master of the Horse from 1702), and his wife's close friendship with Queen Mary (and with Queen Anne, whom she served as a lady-in-waiting and between 1711 and 1714 as Groom of the Stole), the correspondence between the royal commission to Kneller and the Somersets' commission to Dahl is unsurprising. Whereas at Hampton Court the dining room and the ladies were presided over by a portrait of Queen Anne by William Wissing (1656-87), the Petworth Beauty Room did not--until c. 1828-30--contain Kneller's portrait of the Queen. Queen Anne and especially her consort, Prince George of Denmark, were enthusiastic patrons of Dahl, commissioning--presumably in emulation of Lely's set of the 1660s--a series of portraits of British admirals (both sets are in the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich). Vertue thought that these naval portraits and the Petworth 'beautyes' were achievements which 'will always be public demonstrations of his superior skill', and that the Beauties 'shew the great skill of Mr. Dahl in Art, beauty, of grace, genteel artfull draperies finely painted & well dispos'd.' (53)

The only portrait among the Petworth Beauties not by Dahl is Kneller's Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough (1660-1744) (no. 197) (Fig. 7). The sitter--as Groom of the Stole and Mistress of the Robes (1702-11)--was in charge of the ladies of the bedchamber and the maids of honour. Her portrait--in peeress's robes with the key of office at her waist (the other sitters are in portrait-painters' deshabille')--is dated 1705. Another sitter--Margaret, Countess of Pembroke (no. 206)--died in 1706, thus providing a terminus ante quem for the set. It is interesting that the Duchess of Somerset is not one of their number, despite being a lady of the bedchamber, but of course she was not a beauty. There are two portraits of her by Kneller (nos. 344, dated 1713, and 523) depicting her as Groom of the Stole and Mistress of the Robes,(54) and this is an additional argument for the earlier dating of the Beauty Room set, which was clearly started before and continued during the Duchess of Marlborough's tenure of these offices.

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

The dating of the Beauty Room itself (Fig. 8) is complicated by virtue of the fire in 1714 that destroyed the adjacent Grand Staircase, which was rebuilt, and painted by Louis Laguerre (1663-1721) in 1718-20. (55) It is possible that the first incarnation of the Beauty Room was in another room, and that the portraits were reassembled in their present location after the fire. (56) Given that the Beauty Room was certainly the dining room in 1749-50, this would explain the otherwise confusing payment in 1689-90 to the carver John Selden for an elaborate carved overmantel and carved cornice for the 'dining roome'. (57) Selden's overmantel is now in the Carved Room (where it was installed c. 1793-94) and is too broad for the Beauty Room chimney-breast. The tradition that Selden lost his life in the 1714 fire trying to save his carvings is erroneous. In fact he died in the following year, (58) so perhaps he was able to save elements of the original dining room, subsequently reconstructed as the Beauty Room. Alternatively, pre-fire, the dining room with Selden's overmantel may have been elsewhere. If so, we must assume that the Beauty Room and its portraits were unscathed by the fire, protected-perhaps--by folding, partly-glazed double doors that originally separated the room from the Grand Staircase. A bill of 30 July 1705 strengthens the latter possibility, given that the date tallies with that of Kneller's portrait of the Duchess of Marlborough (presumably the last in the series): '... carrying out the rubbish out of the dining room when the alterations were made this year ... 2.3.0 [pounds sterling]'. (59) Perhaps Selden's carved overmantel was removed on this occasion.

The begetter of the Beauty Room (Fig. 8), the 6th Duke of Somerset (60)--who rebuilt Petworth in palatial style with his wife's money--is often caricatured as an egocentric and inordinately proud buffoon, who, in Avray Tipping's apt phrase, 'posed ... as the premier subject of a whole series of sovereigns'. (61) However, it is increasingly evident that he was a discriminating collector of pictures and sculpture as well as a patron of architects, builders, designers and craftsmen. Indeed the roles of artists in his employ often overlapped with their activities as dealers. Grinling Gibbons (1648-1721), who worked at Petworth and at Cambridge for the Duke, also sold him--with Parry Walton--the so-called 'Petworth Claude' (no. 329). Closterman--who painted the magnificent full-length portraits of the Duke and Duchess in Gibbons's Carved Room at Petworth--also advised the Duke on purchases of Old Masters. (62) According to Vertue, it was a disagreement over one such acquisition (of a Guercino) that led Somerset to discard Closterman and employ Dahl. Vertue describes how the Duke 'went to Mr. Dahl, & to sett him to work had his own picture drawn--gave it--to several persons of distinction, and engagd them to sett to Mr. Dahl for their pictures which he then had painted all at full length being several ladies and is now the ornament of one of his fine roomes at Petworth'. (63) In c. 1730, Vertue describes them for the first time as 'beauties' (64) (the term 'Beauty Room' appears first in the 1764 inventory) (65) and states that 'these are very well & deserve the characters of the best works of Mr Dahl'. (66)

Nisser's monograph on Dahl fixes Vertue's undated description of the falling out between Somerset and Closterman to 1696, (67) but as a lost 'large picture of my Lord Duke's family' was collected from Closterman's studio in 1710, (68) it cannot have produced as final a rift as Vertue supposed. Also, Somerset's first known payment in 1695 to Dahl for 'his Graces picture' (69)--or as the Duke described it: 'a heade which I gave to [S.sup.r]. Willm. Temple' (70)--may be the portrait given to the sitters in the Beauty Room portraits. Other payments to Dahl were made in 1708 (71)and 1713 (72) for work unconnected with the Beauty Room. Nor are there any references to the construction of the Beauty Room in the Duke's accounts. There is no inventory of the Beauty Room until 1749/50 (73) just after the 7th Duke's death, but this and the 1764 inventory (74) (which for the first time gives the names of the sitters and the sequence of the portraits within the room) reveal what was presumably the original arrangement. The eight portraits (two overdoors and six full lengths) were set into the panelling, which was painted a greyish white, (75) and were framed within matching, painted bolection mouldings. Since c. 1828-30, the overmantel has been Kneller's portrait of Queen Anne, within Samuel Norman's magnificent frame of 1763, (76) but originally the overmantel would have contained--above a mirror--Dahl's full-length portrait of the Duchess of Ormond, now fixed on the opposite wall.

Today, only the two overdoors of Ladies Portland (Fig. 6) and Howe are in their original positions. The remaining six (five by Dahl and one by Kneller) have not only been moved but have been reduced in size. They are now three-quarter length, but originally were full-length. The explanation for this is to be found in George Jones's biography of Sir Francis Chantrey (1848). George Wyndham, third Earl of Egremont (1751-1837)--Turner's great patron--had commissioned from George Jones depictions 'of the battles of Vittoria and Waterloo', (77) and in the late 1820s wanted to hang them in the Beauty Room--together with Thomas Phillips's portrait of Napoleon and Chantrey's bust of the Duke of Wellington of 1828. He asked Chantrey 'about the best light for the pictures' and was told that 'the most favourable [wall] was occupied by three large whole-length portraits, fixed in the panels; upon which his lordship said, "Well, I will put them there, and your bust of the Duke in the centre". Chantrey then observed that the three portraits must in that case be removed. "No" said the Earl, I have no place for them". "What then is to be done?" was the natural question; to which the Earl answered, "I will cut off their legs, I do not want their petticoats; their heads shall be placed in three small panels above, and the battles with the marble bust of the Duke shall be placed below them;", and this was done.' (78)

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

Fortunately, the full lengths were not cut down, but were shortened by folding the unwanted canvas over a shorter stretcher. (79) The North wall of the Beauty Room originally contained two full-length Portraits--not three as stated by Jones--but once the two full lengths had been reduced in height, a third reduced full length (the overmantel portrait of the Duchess of Ormond) was added. The evidence for the original arrangement, described in the 1749/50 and 1764 inventories, can be clearly seen behind the panelling. (80) The six narrow vertical compartments, on either side of the full-length portraits on the North and South walls were filled with mirror glass (three plates in each panel). These glass panels--like the overmantel and the 'Pier Glass with Circular Top', no longer with its original '4 Plates' of glass--were designed to reflect the light, but would also have had the curious effect of reflecting the images of those looking at the portraits. Above the full-lengths (except for the overmantel) set in horizontal oblong panels, were five copies of ornamental paintings with friezes of putti by Polidoro da Caravaggio (c. 1495-1543) (nos. 606-8, 610 and 611; Collection of Lord Egremont) (Fig. 9). (81) As well as being decorative, the imagery of the Polidoros was appropriate to the Beauties theme, putti being symbolic of love and fecundity. These copies were made by Symon Stone in 1661, when the 10th Earl of Northumberland returned the originals to Charles II (they are still in the Royal Collection). (82) In 1671, the inventory of Northumberland House implies that three of the five hung in close proximity to the Van Dycks. (83)By uniting the Polidoros with Dahl's full-length portraits, perhaps the Duke of Somerset was also imitating the original arrangement of Lely's 'Windsor Beauties' at St James's Palace, where the 1674 inventory records 'six narrow long pictures [by Schiavone] under the great ones'. (84) At Petworth, the Polidoros were placed above the full lengths, within matching bolection frames. This would have left the bottom edges of the portraits about five feet off the floor. The dado rail is about four feet high and the '12 Wallnut tree Chairs with flowerd Velvet Pincushion Seats' (85) would presumably have had high backs, which would have left a margin of about six inches below the portraits.

[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]

Here, perhaps, were entertained to supper in 1703 the Archduke Charles of Austria (the then anti-French claimant to the Spanish Throne, who was supported by the English), Prince George of Denmark, and the great Duke of Marlborough. If so, the room must have been unfinished, given that the Duchess of Marlborough's portrait is dated 1705 (Fig. 7). Prince George noted that Petworth was still a building site on 28 December 1703, writing of the 'magnificence of the Duke of Somerset's house (though it is not near finished), the exceeding rich furniture, fine pictures, carvings, etc'. (86) As Queen Anne's consort, Prince George would have felt very much at home with Dahl's portraits of court ladies. (87) Another connection between three of the beauties--the Countess of Carlisle and the Duchesses of Devonshire and Marlborough--was that their husbands were members of the Kit Kat Club, (88) a convivial Whig society dedicated to religious toleration, the Hanoverian succession and the defeat of France. The Countess of Carlisle's brother, the second Earl of Essex, was also a member. The Duke of Somerset was not only a founder member, but began the tradition of commissioning the members' portraits from Godfrey Kneller in about 1703. This idea may have been inspired by his decision to compile the Beauty Room set, whose raison d'etre was simply the beauty of the sitters and their association with the court.

The Duke of Somerset, after his Duchess's death in 1722, was desperate to marry the widowed Duchess of Marlborough. She refused him, but he married Lady Charlotte Finch on her suggestion. (89) It must, however, have been some consolation to the Duke that at Petworth he dined always with her portrait. He must also have derived satisfaction from his continuation of the Petworth tradition of portraiture, although--as has been indicated earlier--the 10th Earl of Northumberland's collecting of female portraits by Van Dyck cannot be considered, like the Dahl and Kneller series, as a straightforward compilation of a gallery of beauties.

I am grateful to Lord Egremont for permission to publish material from the Petworth House Archives, and to Alison McCann, the Petworth archivist. I am also particularly indebted to the late Gervase Jackson-Stops and to Sophie Chessum for help with research. Alastair Laing has helped in a variety of ways. Thanks are also due to David Adshead, Sarah Blackburn, Charlotte Booth, Frances Harris, Derek Holdaway, Victoria Marsland, Sir Oliver Millar, Judith Mills, Ben Pearce, and Jacob Simon.

This article derives from a paper given to a National Trust/National Portrait Gallery, symposium entitled 'Sitters in Portraits: Inscriptions, Identifications and Sets', held at fine National Portrait Gallery on 16 November 2001.

(1) "For the Petworth collection of pictures, see C.H. Collins Baker, Catalogue of the Petworth Collection of Pictures in the Possession of Lord Leconfield, London, 1920 (all inventory numbers of Petworth pictures cited in the present article refer to this catalogue); St John Gore, 'Three Centuries of Discrimination', APOLLO, vol. CV, no. 183 (May 1977), pp. 346-57; A. Laing, In Trust for the Nation, exh. cat., National Gallery, 1995; and C. Rowell, Petworth House, London, 1997 (revised edition, 2002).

(2) See C. Rowell I. Warrell and D. Blayney Brown, Turner at Petworth, exh. cat., Petworth House, 2002, pp. 100-105, figs. 98 and 99.

(3) P.G. Patmore, British Galleries of Art, London, 1824, p. 89. Patmore clearly thought that the pictures dated from the reign of Charles II, ascribing them not to Dahl but to Kneller (correctly in one case, but the portrait--of the Duchess of Marlborough--is dated 1705) and to Lely.

(4) Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Northumberland Record Office (hereafter NRO), Creevey MS 324, letter from Thomas Creevey to his step daughter, Elizabeth Ord, 19 August 1828; a microfilm copy is in the Library (Special Collections), University College. I am most grateful to Mr John Blackett-Ord for permission to quote from this document.

(5) The notable exceptions are the famous full length portraits of Sir Robert and Lady Shirley (nos. 96 and 97), the details of whose acquisition are unknown, and which were first listed at Petworth in 1764 (PHA 6266).

(6) J. Wood, 'Van Dyck and the Earl of Northumberland: Taste and Collecting in Stuart England', in Van Dyck 350, S. Barnes and A. Wheelock (eds.), (Studies in the History. of Art, no. 46), Washington DC, 1994, pp. 281-324, and idem, 'The Architectural Patronage of Algernon Percy, 10th Earl of Northumberland', in J. Bold and E. Chaney (eds.), English Architecture Public and Private, London, 1993, pp. 55-80. See also O. Millar, 'Notes on British Painting from Archives: III', Burlington Magazine, vol. XCVII, no. 629 (August 1955), pp. 255-56; St John Gore, 'The Background to the Inventories Recording the Acquisitions of the 10th Earl of Northumberland and of the 2nd Earl of Egremont', in G. Jackson-Stops (ed.), The Fashioning and Functioning of the British Country House, Washington DC, (Studies in the History of Art, no. 25), 1989, pp. 121-31, and Rowell, op. cit., pp. 62-67.

(7) George Vertue, Notebooks, vol. IV, p. 151 (1738) (Walpole Society, vol. XXIV, 1935-36).

(8) E. Borea (ed.), Giovanni Pietro Bellori, Le Vite de' pittori, scultori e architetti moderni, Turin, 1976, p. 281; quoted in Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994), p. 315, note 2.

(9) See the 1671 inventory of the Northumberland collection at Northumberland House, Petworth and Syon ( Alnwick Castle Archives (hereafter ACA), 72, MS 107, GC26) which is published in full in Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994), pp. 304-308, Appendix III.

(10) ACA, MS Syon House u.1.5, unnumbered,; first published in Millar, op. cit., p. 255, and in Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994) p. 309, Appendix IV, no. 8.

(11) British Library, Egerton MS 1636; published in ibid., p. 303, Appendix I.

(12) See L. Nikolenko, 'The Beauties Galleries', Gazette des Beaux-Arts, vol. LXVII, 1966, pp. 19-24; L. Campbell, Renaissance Portraits, New Haven and London, 1990, pp. 218-20, and M. Wenzel, Heldinnengalerie--Schonheitengalerie: Studien zur Genese und Funktion Weiblicher Bildnisgalerien 1470-1715, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Heidelberg, 2001.

(13) Mazarin, like the 10th Earl, was actively collecting in England during the Commonwealth, as recorded by Evelyn in 1653 (see A. Griffiths, The Print in Stuart Britain 1603-1689, exh. cat., British Museum, 1998, p. 178).

(14) See n. 11 above.

(15) See n. 9 above.

(16) Vertue, op. cit., vol. IV, p. 152, saw c. 1738 at Somerset House' Algernoon Percy a head over a door', which could refer to this portrait.

(17) See Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994), p. 303, Appendix b no. 17.

(18) Wrongly identified in Collins Baker, op. cit., p. 30, as Mrs Endymion Porter.

(19) Wrongly identified in ibid., p. 30, as Ann Cavendish, Lady Rich, on the basis of an old inscription. Lady Newport was first correctly identified by Alastair Laing. Collins Baker states it 'was worked on by assistants', but its high quality is clear, and is attested to by the valuation in the 1671 inventory at 30 [pounds sterling]; for which, see Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994), p. 304, and is upheld by Sir Oliver Millar, who considers it entirely autograph.

(20) Wrongly identified by Collins Baker, op. cit., p. 32, as Sir Charles Percy. Its identification as the 8th Earl of Northumberland was first tentatively suggested by Sir Oliver Millar (information from Alastair Laing), and subsequently in Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994), p. 321, note 150. Collins Baker, op. cit., p. 32, lists it as in the manner of Van Dyck, 'perhaps by Walker', but it was described in 1671 as 'Done by Van Dyke' albeit with a lower valuation (20 [pounds sterling]) than the 30 [pounds sterling] accorded to the other originals (see Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above [1994], p. 305, no. 19). Sir Oliver Millar has kindly confirmed that it is a studio work, while accepting that tile head is autograph. Van Dyck derived the likeness from two earlier portrraits of the 8th Earl (nos. 593 and 459*; both Collection of Lord Egremont, Petworth House).

(21) Ibid., p. 290.

(22) For the contents of the Wharton gallery at Upper Winchendon, see A. Houbraken, De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche Konstschilders en Schilderessen, 1718, P. Swittens and W. Vogelsang (eds.), Maastricht, 1943, vol. I pp. 147-48; Vertue, op. cit., vol. VI, p. 11 (1721-24), (Walpole Society, vol. XXX, 1951-52); vol. I, pp. 29 and 109, (Walpole Society, vol. XVIII, 1929-30); and vol. II, p. 98 (Walpole Society, vol. XX, 1931-32); and O. Millar, 'Philip, Lord Wharton and his collection of portraits', Burlington Magazine, vol. CXXXVI, no. 1097 (August 1994), pp. 517-30.

(23) 'The King on Horseback, on a White Horse the face not finished by Van Dyke', as it was described in the 1671 inventory of Northumberland House, had been hanging there among the other Van Dycks since at least 1652 (Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above [1994], p. 304, Appendix III, no. 11, and p. 303, Appendix I, no. 19).

(24) See A. Laing and N. Strachey, 'The Duke and Duchess of Lauderdale's Pictures at Ham House', APOLLO, vol. CXXXIX, no. 387 (May 1994), pp. 3-9.

(25) See Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994), for the sources of the following description of the display of the 10th Earl's pictures.

(26) Ibid., Appendix IV, no. 47 (Petworth House Archives [hereafter PHA] 5869, 1654/55).

(27) For such galleries, see A. Scarpa Sonino, Le Grandi Collezioni d'Arte nei Dipinti dal XVII al XIX Secolo, Milan, 1992, especially (for Leopold Wilhelm's gallery) pp. 81104.

(28) Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994), Appendix IV, p. 309, no. 11.

(29) See ibid., Appendix IV, p. 312, no. 51 (PHA 5893, 1657/8).

(30) See R. Davies, 'An Inventory of the Duke of Buckingham's Pictures, etc., at York House in 1635', Burlington Magazine, vol. X, no. 48 (March 1907), pp. 376-82, and S. Jervis, 'Furniture for the First Duke of Buckingham', Furniture History, vol. XXXIII, 1997, pp. 48-74.

(31) See C. Rowell, 'A Seventeenth-century Cabinet Restored: The Green Closet at Ham House', APOLLO, vol. CXLIII no. 410 (April 1996), pp. 18-24.

(32) The twelfth was one of two portraits of Lady Carlisle whose whereabouts are unknown. Wood records a copy at Syon; see Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994), pp. 305, no. 21, and 318, note 57.

(33) PHA 172 (1689-90): 'to Mr Parry Walton lineing cleansing priming and packing 11 of Vandykes Pictures, 2 large ones, and the Queens Picture 25-10-0 [pounds sterling].' Walton was also a frame-maker, so the frames have, as a result, been attributed to him. See G. Jackson-Stops, 'Bordering on Works of Art: Picture Frames at Petworth--I', Country Life', vol. CLXVIII, no. 4333, 4 September 1980, pp. 798-800, and figs. 5-6, misprinting his name as 'Perry Malton'.

(34) See Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994), p. 314, Appendix IV, no. 61 (PHX 5940, 1661/2) and no. 64 (PHA 5775, 1664/5). The first payment (for six frames) to 'Norris the Joyner' was made in 1654-56, no. 48 (PHA 5872) and the first reference to 'a carved and guilt frame' was made in 1658/59, no. 55 (PHA 5903), but this does not necessarily mean that such frames were not supplied earlier. Indeed, the eleven Petworth frames are stylistically similar to the 1640-42 frame of a painting by Eustache Le Sueur in the Louvre; for which, see Jane Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art, London, 1996, vol. XI, pp. 401-402, fig. 26d (entry by Paul Mitchell and Lynn Roberts).

(35) For Lombart, see Griffiths, op. cit., pp. 178-83. It is interesting that Lombart included two male portraits in his set, a decision that is only partly explained by the fact that the fathers of the 5th Earl of Pembroke and the 3rd Earl of Arundel were--like Northumberland--prominent patrons of Van Dyck. Perhaps Lombart intended a full series of engraved portraits of Earls. Lombart also partly based his engraving known as the Headless horseman (1655) on Northumberland's equestrian portrait of Charles I (no. 124), which had been hanging in Northumberland House among the other Van Dycks since at least 1652. As the face was unfinished, this was ideally suited to the insertion by Lombart of whichever face was politically appropriate at the time: Charles I, Cromwell or Louis XIV. See ibid., pp. 180 81, fig. 117.

(36) Jackson-Stops, op. cit. in n. 33 above, pp. 799-800, figs. 7 and 8.

(37) For this series of copies by Leemput after Van Dyck, see P. van der Ploeg and C. Vermeeren (eds.), Princely Patrons: The Collection of Frederick Henry of Orange and Amalia of Solms in The Hague, exh. cat., Mauritshuis, The Hague, 1997-98, no. 16, pp. 164-69 (catalogue entry by W. Savelsberg).

(38) Ibid., pp. 164-69.

(39) See G. Bazin, The Museum Age, Brussels, (n.d., c. 1968), p. 104, and, for the gallery at Pibrac, fig. 66.

(40) See Griffiths, op. cit., p. 183.

(41) Vertue, op. cit., vol. II, p. 81 (c. 1730), (Walpole Society, vol. XX, 1931-32).

(42) James Dallaway, Parochial Topography of the Rape of Arundel in the Western Division of the County of Sussex, London, 1832, vol. II, p. 318, note B, for example, recorded of Van Dyck 'a tradition that the five ladies [of whom four were engraved by Lombart], some of the finest half-lengths he ever painted, were finished during his residence at Petworth, and ... have never been removed.'

(43) O. Millar, Van Dyck in England, exh. cat., National Portrait Gallery, 1982, no. 40, and p. 83, fig. 42.

(44) See Wood, op. cit. in n. 6 above (1994), pp. 304-307, Appendix III.

(45) See M. Rogers, William Dobson 1611-46, exh. cat., National Portrait Gallery, 1983, pp. 88-90, no. 46.

(46) See F. Petrucci, 'Monsu Ferdinando ritrattista: Note su Jacob Ferdinand Voet (1639-1700?)', Storia dell'Arte, vol. LXXXIV, 1995, pp. 283-306, no. 84. For photographs of the galleries of beauties at Ariccia, and at the Palazzo Altieri, see p. 296, figs. 15 and 16.

(47) For an account of the 'Beauties Series' in mid-seventeenth-century England, see C. MacLeod and J.C. Alexander, Pamtcd Ladies: Women at the Court of King Charles II, exh. cat., National Portrait Gallery, 2001, especially pp. 53-54.

(48) 'Dahl, Michael', in Jane Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art, London, 1996, vol. III, pp. 453-55 (entry by R. Jeffree).

(49) Daniel Defoe, A Tour thro' ... Great Britain (1724-27), G.D.H. Cole (ed.), London, 1927, vol. I, p. 175.

(50) F. Harris, "The Honourable Sisterhood": Queen Anne's Maids of Honour', The British Library Journal, vol. XIX, 1993, p. 190 and note 43 (21 August 1700).

(51) "Ibid., p. 190 and note 44 (22 and 23 April 1703).

(52) See O. Millar, The Tudor, Stuart and Early Georgian Pictures in the Royal Collection, London, 1963, pp. 146-48, nos. 351-58.

(53) Vertue, op. cit., vol. XXII, p. 43 (Walpole Society, vol. XXII 1933-34).

(54) Kneller presumably painted the Duchesses of Marlborough and Somerset as Grooms of the Stole in his official capacity as Principal Painter to the Crown, a position he held from 1688 to 1723.

(55) It is interesting that Laguerre, Dahl, Closterman and Kneller, who were all working for the Duke of Somerset, were officers in 'Kneller's Academy of Painting, 1711, at Queen Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields': 'Mr Bap. Closterman (face painter) Mr. Laguerre Dirctr Mr. Dahl (Portrait)', Vertue, op. cit., vol. VI, p. 168 (Walpole Society, vol. XXX, 1951-52).

(56) Michael Wenzel (written communication and in his thesis [see n. 12 above], from which he kindly showed me the section relevant to the Dahl portraits) rightly points out that I was wrong to date them after 1714 (Rowell, op. cit. in note 1 above, p. 19), but there remains the possibility that the Beauty Room could have been created in its present location as a result of the devastation by fire in 1714 of the previous dining room containing Selden's carvings.

(57) PHA 172, 1689-90: 'to Mr. Selden for Carving 104 foot of Hollow Cornish round the dining roome at 3/6 the foot, a large chimney peece for the said dining roome carved with ffowles ffishes and flowers, a picture frame for the Chimney in the said roome carved with fouldings and flowers conteyning 22 foot at 5/-the foot'.

(58) Vertue, op. cit., vol. XX, p. 81 (c. 1730) (Walpole Society, vol. XX, 1931-32): 'this man [Selden] lost his life by saving the carving from being burnt while the house was on fire'. Vertue was referring to the carvings in the Carved Room, which he attributed to 'Gibbons & Selden'. In fact, Selden did not have a hand in Gibbons's original Carved Room, which in any case was apparently undamaged by the fire.

(59) Payment to Thomas West, Bricklayer; Alnwick Typed Handlist, Class n, Division 1/29 (Nathaniel Bridgewater's Cash Book). I am grateful to His Grace the Duke of Northumberland for permission to publish this document, and to the late Gervase Jackson-Stops for providing a transcription.

(60) For a general account of the Duke of Somerset and his patronage and collecting, see Rowell, op. cit. in tn. 1 above, pp. 68-74.

(61) H. Avray Tipping, Grinling Gibbons and the Woodwork of his Age, London, 1914, p. 185.

(62) For Closterman, see M. Rogers, 'John and John Baptist Closterman', Walpole Society, vol. XLIX, 1983, pp. 224-79; for Closterman, Gibbons and the Petworth Carved Room, see C. Rowell, 'Grinling Gibbons's Carved Room at Petworth: "The most superb monument of his skill"', APOLLO, vol. CLI, vol. 458 (April 2000), pp. 19-26.

(63) Vertue, op. cit., vol. IV, p. 21 (Walpole Society, vol. XXIV, 1935-36).

(64) Rogers, op. cit. in n. 41 above, p. 81.

(65) PHA 6266.

(66) Rogers, op. cit. in n. 41 above, p. 81.

(67) W. Nisser, Michael Dahl and the Contemporary Swedish School of Painting in England, Uppsala, 1927, pp. 91-92.

(68) Alnwick MSS, Class U, Division 1/35, Nathaniel Bridgewater's Day Book 1704-37: 'August 10th 1710 Paid 2 porters to bring the large picture of my lord Duke's family from Mr Clostermans 0.1.6'. Closterman had already painted (c. 1695) the group portrait of seven of the Duke's children (Syon House no. 60; Duke of Northumberland). I am grateful to Jane Cunningham of the Courtauld Institute for bringing the latter portrait to my attention, and for providing a photograph and other information.

(69) PHA 221, Duke of Somerset's Receipt Books, 1695.

(70) PHA 221, Duke of Somerset's Receipt Books, 6 January 1695: 'To Mr. Dayle for the drawing my pictor beeing a heade which I gave to Sr. Willm. Temple-10 [pounds sterling]'.

(71) Alnwick MSS, Class U, Division 1/35, Nathaniel Bridgewater's Day Book 1704-37, 6 September 1708.

(72) Alnwick MSS, Class U, Division 1/35, Nathaniel Bridge water's Cash Book, 30 November 1713.

(73) PHA 6263.

(74) PHA 6266.

(75) I am grateful to Catherine Hassall for establishing this by paint analysis.

(76) The first inventory to list it in line Beauty Room is H. W. Phillips's manuscript 'Catalogue of Pictures at Petworth, 1835', Victoria and Albert Museum, MS 86FF67.

(77) The Vittoria was exhibited in 1825 (see Collins Baker, op. cit., p. 65, no. 198) and the Waterloo was almost finished on 23 July 1827 (PHA 5745).

(78) George Jones, Sir Francis Chantrey, RA: Recollections of his Life, Practice and Opinions, London, 1849, pp. 121-22.

(79) Alison McCann first noted a reference to this in a letter from Cecilia Ridley, dated 4 October 1841: 'In one room there are copies of the Hampton Court beauties hanging around, and Col. Wyndham [in fact it was his father, the 3rd Earl of Egremont] has unmercifully rolling up their legs to make room for some battle pieces below, which seems to me an odd thing to do.' (Viscountess Ridley [ed.], Cecilia: The Life and Letters of Cecilia Ridley, 1819-45, London 1958, p. 64). The folded-over sections of the portraits are in remarkably good condition, and were conserved when the Beauty Room was restored in 1995-96 in accordance with the 3rd Earl's anti-Napoleonic arrangement.

(80) The relevant entries in the 1749/50 inventory [PHA 6263] are: '6 Pannells of Glass wth 3 Plates each/One Chimney Glass with 3 Plates/6 Pictures at Full Length in Pannels/2 Do at half length over the Doors/5 Pieces of Painting in Pannels over ye other Pictures'. This is confirmed by the 1764 inventory (PHA 6266). The late Gervase Jackson-Stops first established line original layout of the Beauty Room on the basis of these inventories.

(81) The original set of six Polidoros is at Hampton Court. See J. Shearman, The Early/Italian Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 197-200, nos. 200-205. Polidoro's pictures were popular in seventeenth-century decoration-copies after fine Royal Collection Polidoros were installed in line panelling at Ham House in the 1670s, and may have been at Ham since the reign of Charles I.

(82) Wood, op. cit., pp. 298 and 314, Appendix IV, no. 61 (PHA 5940).

(83) Ibid., p. 305, Appendix III, no. 23.

(84) Millar, op. cit. in n. 52 above, p. 124, states that the 674 inventory refers to Whitehall Palace. However, Millar later described the portraits as hanging in the White Room at St. James's (idem, The Queen's Pictures, London, 1977, p. 70), a reading of the somewhat ambiguous 1674 inventory with which Michael Wenzel has recently concurred (M. Wenzel, 'The Windsor Beau ties by Sir Peter Lely and the collection of paintings at St. James's Palace, 1674', Journal of the t History of Collections, vol. XIV, res. 2, 2002, pp. 205-13).

(85) 1749/50 inventory (PHA 6263). Otherwise, the principal contents of the room in 1749/50 comprised a marble topped pier table, '2 Marble Side board Tables & 1 small Oak Do.', a 'Six leaved Japan Screen', calico festoon curtains and cornices, and 'A Large Mat for Dining on'. Apart from the '2 Marble Side Board Tables' which may be the white painted tables (c. 1735) on either side of the Square Dining Room chimneypiece, none of this furniture survives.

(86) An account of the King of Spain's reception at Pet worth, Windsor, &c.' (by 'JC', 14 January, 1703/1704) reprinted from Annals of the Reign of Queen Anne, 1704, vol. II, Appendix 14, is in Dallaway, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 328-30.

(87) For holders of these and other court posts held by the Beauty Room sitters, see J. Sainty and R. Bucholz, Office Holders in Modern Britain, vol. XI, Officials of the Royal Household 1660-1837, Part I: Department of the Lord Chamberlain and associated offices, University of London, Institute of Historical Research, 1997, pp. 6-7 (Groom of the Stole), p. 12 (Ladies of the Bedchamber 1702-14) and pp. 33-34 (Robes).

(88) For the history and iconography of the Kit Kat Club, see Mary Ransome, The Portraits of Members of the Kit Cat Club, National Portrait Gallery, London (undated, c. 1945); and D. Piper, Catalogue of the Seventeenth-Century Portraits in the National Portrait Gallery 1625-1714, Cambridge, 1963, pp. 322 23, no. 3224 (for Kneller's portrait of the 6th Duke of Somerset), and pp. 398-403, 'Appendix: The Kit-Cat Club Portraits'.

(89) See David Green, Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, London, 1967, pp. 241-45.

Christopher Rowell has recently been appointed Furniture Curator to the National Trust, having previously been the Trust's Historic Buildings Representative for the Southern Region, with particular responsibility for Petworth House.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Apollo Magazine Ltd.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group