Michael Rysbrack (1694-1770) British, 1733

the socle inscribed: Georgius Comes D. Orkney. Filius / qunitus Gulielmi Dux Hamiltonie / Aetatis Sui 67. A.D. 1733 (George, Earl of Orkney, the fifth son of William, Duke of Hamilton. His age 67 in the year of our Lord 1733)

Almost certainly George Hamilton, 1^st Earl of Orkney, and by descent;
Arthur Oliver Villiers Russell, 2nd Baron Ampthill, Viceroy of India and Margaret Russell (née Lygon), Baroness Ampthill, Oakley House, Bedfordshire, until circa 1935;
with Ron Green Antiques, Towcester, Northamptonshire, circa 1955;
with John Teed, Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire, by 1956;
Denys Sutton, London, acquired between 1957 and 1959, until 1991;
Sotheby's New York, 29-30 January 2009, lot 339;
Private Collection, London

London, The Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood House, Eighteenth century Portrait Busts, June-September 1959, no. 30;
London, Victoria and Albert Museum, 2010-2015 (inv. no. LOAN:SCPANON.1-2010)

G. Vertue, Walpole Society XXII , Vertue Notebooks, vol. III, 1732, p. 57 (terracotta model);
M. I. Webb, Michael Rysbrack Sculptor, London, 1954, p. 222 (terracotta model);
M. I. Webb, 'A Rysbrack Discovery', Country Life, November 22, 1956, p. 1182;
M. Whinney and M. Crake, Eighteenth century Portrait Busts, exh. cat. The Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood House, London, 1959, p. 27, no. 30;
M. Whinney, Sculpture in Britain 1530-1830, London, 1964, pp. 87 and 256, n.17;
M. Baker, Figured in Marble: the making and viewing of eighteenth century sculpture, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 2000, p.141, fig. 111;
I. Roscoe, E. Hardy and M.G. Sullivan (eds.), A Biographical Dictionary of Sculptors in Britain 1660-1851, New Haven and London, 2009, p. 1087, no. 202;
D. Wilson, 'The British Augustan oligarchy in portraiture: Michael Rysbrack and his bust of the Earl of Orkney,' The British Art Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, 2010/2011, pp. 43-61;
D. Wilson, ‘Michael Rysbrack’s Antique Head on Modern Shoulders’, The Georgian Group Journal, Vol. XXI [2013], pp. 15-29, at pp. 19-20.

Overall the condition of the bust is very good with minor wear to the surface consistent with age. Significantly, the bust retains its original, beautifully carved, surface. The bust was professionally cleaned and conserved in 2009/10 by Voitek Conservation, London, prior to going on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum. There had previously been some light orange discolouration to the proper right side, probably due to the bust having been placed near to a leaking water pipe in the distant past. This discolouration was successfully removed, with only minor staining remaining in the bottom of the socle, possibly due to a higher concentration of iron particles localised within the marble of the socle, or as the result of substances used to heighten the lettering of the inscription (no trace elements of such heightening remain). There are restorations to the top rim of the socle, which has been strengthened with the addition of a stainless steel plate (barely visible from below). There is veining to the marble consistent with the material, including a more prominent slightly open vein running from the back of the neck through to the proper left shoulder; this vein is restored. There are some further slightly open veins in the front of the proper left shoulder. There are some minor abrasions to the drapery at the proper right shoulder, and to some of the edges of the bust. The front lower right corner of the socle below the inscription is replaced. There are some very minor chips around the lower edges of the socle. The bust revolves with ease, allowing viewing from multiple viewpoints.
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

This magisterial portrait bust of George Hamilton, 1st Earl of Orkney, is an important and rare early work by one of the greatest 18^th-century British sculptors, the Flemish born Michael Rysbrack. Lord Orkney was a second in command to John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, during the War of the Spanish Succession, playing a leading role at the Battles of Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet. A respected and highly capable general, this self-effacing Scot, was, later in life, created the British Army's first Field Marshal. Rysbrack's portrait presents Orkney in the all'antica guise of a classical general, marking him out as the embodiment of liberty and civic virtue, the cardinal ideals of the 18th-century British aristocracy. With its superb paludamentum (Roman military cloak), enlivened by Baroque swathes and ripples, and its astonishing verism, the bust compares with Rysbrack's greatest works, including the Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham (Victoria and Albert Museum, London, inv. no. A.6-1999), and stands within the martial tradition established by the sculptor's busts of Orkney's superior, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, of which the earliest is housed in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (inv. no. WA 1926.32).

George Hamilton, 1st Earl of Orkney

George Hamilton was the fifth son of Anne Hamilton, Duchess of Hamilton suo jure, and her husband William Douglas, Earl of Selkirk, later created Duke of Hamilton. In 1695, George married Elizabeth Villiers, sister of the 1st Earl of Jersey and reputed one-time mistress of King William III. Hamilton was created Earl of Orkney (in the peerage of Scotland) in 1696. From 1707, following the Act of Union, he sat as one of the 16 representative Scottish peers in the House of Lords until his death. As a young man, Orkney held a commission as captain in the Royal Scots, the first Regiment of Foot, the British army's premier infantry division. He swiftly established a reputation for himself as a first class officer, playing a crucial role in William III's victory at the Battle of the Boyne on 1 July 1690. Later Orkney was a second in command to John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), when he played leading roles at the Battles of Blenheim (1704), Ramillies (1706), Oudenarde (1708) and Malplaquet (1709). Appointed major-general in 1702, becoming lieutenant-general two years later, Orkney was eventually promoted general of the Foot in 1711. Orkney was bestowed with the Order of a Knight of the Thistle in 1704. At the Battle of Blenheim Orkney led the final assault on the village of Blenheim, receiving the surrender of its French defenders. Described as ‘a brave man’ by Marlborough no less, and as ‘gallant’ by the Duke’s famous descendant, Sir Winston Churchill (cited by Wilson, 2010, op. cit., p.  57), Orkney’s battalions led the charge toward the French entrenchments at the battle of Malplaquet in 1709, suffering serious losses. Marlborough was an adherent to the strategy of attack combining cavalry and infantry, and Orkney’s leadership of the infantry was not only indispensable to Marlborough’s success in the field, but on some occasions was the vital component of that success, such as at Malplaquet where so fierce were the French counterattacks that ‘I really believe, had not ye foot been here, that the enemy would have driven our Horse from the field’ (Orkney, quoted by Wilson, op. cit., p. 45).

Despite his achievements, Orkney maintained a remarkable level of modesty throughout his life, declaring after the Battle of Blenheim: 'Without vanity, I think we did our parts' (Orkney, as quoted in Wilson, op. cit., p. 45). Orkney’s letters hint at a surprisingly unassuming, even insecure, figure, who, writing to his nephew the 5th Duke of Hamilton, in 1733, muses upon 'how hard it is to rub of[f] the Scotch accent' (Orkney, as quoted in Wilson, op. cit., n. 18). However, respected for his valour and exemplary military service, Orkney went on to become the consummate courtier, following his retirement from active service in 1714. He was appointed to the Privy Council in 1710 and later became Governor of Edinburgh Castle and Gentleman of the Bedchamber to George I, attending the famous evening on the River Thames on 17 July 1717 when Handel's Water Music was first performed for the King. A respected and highly capable general, in 1736 this self-effacing Scot was appointed Field Marshal of His Majesty's Forces, the first holder of the office in British history.

Rysbrack’s Portrait of Lord Orkney: A masterpiece in the all’antica mode

Rysbrack’s Orkney was first published as ‘A Rysbrack Discovery’ by Marjorie Webb in Country Life on 22 November 1956. Although unsigned, the bust’s authorship was reaffirmed by Margaret Whinney in 1959 and 1964, by Malcolm Baker in 2000, by Ingrid Roscoe, Emma Hardy and MG Sullivan in 2009, and by David Wilson in 2010 (Whinney, 1959, op. cit., p. 27; Whinney, 1964, op. cit., pp. 87 and 256, n.17; Baker, op. cit. p.141, fig. 111; Roscoe et al, op. cit., p. 1087, no. 202; and Wilson, op. cit., p. 43). The absence of a signature is unsurprising: unsigned busts by Rysbrack comprise a large portion of the sculptor’s output and include his most celebrated marble portrait, the Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham, as well as his John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. no. 2015.35). The model for the present bust is recorded in George Vertue’s 1732 Notebook, in which, amongst a list of over 60 busts by Rysbrack, the author describes ‘Ld. Orkney a Moddel’ (Webb, op. cit., p. 222, untraced). As was consistent with Rysbrack’s working practice, this bust would have been modelled in clay before being fired in the kiln to produce a terracotta bust. The terracotta would have served as the model from which Rysbrack carved the present marble bust. Rysbrack had clearly not carved the marble by 1732, as Vertue would almost certainly have mentioned this (as he did for other busts), and, indeed, the bust is dated 1733, undoubtedly the year it was carved in marble.

The Orkney is a triumph of 18th-century all’antica sculptural portraiture, of which Rysbrack was the undisputed master. Following a century of parliamentary development, which saw the overthrow of Charles I, the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights, and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, Britain’s powerful ruling aristocracy sought to cast themselves as the embodiment of liberty and civic virtue, sacred values which were inextricably linked to classical antiquity. Reflecting the political ideals of his powerful clients, and their desire to see their perceived virtue reflected in a new classical iconography, already embodied in Lord Burlington’s Palladian architecture, Rysbrack developed a model for portraiture. That model was based on all’antica protoypes, but infused with elements of the Baroque and Rysbrack’s own particular genius for capturing the physical idiosyncrasies of his sitters. That model, and his ability to create portrait busts with multiple viewpoints, ensured the sculptor’s fame. The Orkney stands in a tradition of portraits by Rysbrack which begins with his Charles, 3rd Earl of Sunderland (Blenheim Palace), carved circa 1722, where Sunderland, wearing closely cropped hair and clad in a simple cuirass, but enveloped in a deeply undercut swathe of Baroque drapery, is presented as a patrician in Augustan Rome.

Rysbrack presents Orkney in the all'antica guise of a classical general, marking him out as the embodiment of liberty and civic virtue. The bust compares with the sculptor's seminal Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham (circa 1723, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, inv. no. A.6-1999), which represents the clearest comparison to the Orkney. The two were, until recently, displayed together in the Victoria and Albert Museum’s Dorothea and Michael Hintze Galleries, with the Orkney standing before the off-centred Nottingham, allowing simultaneous viewing. The remarkable drapery of both busts is, as Wilson has noted, distinctly ‘Baroque in manner, with a variety of deeply undercut slanting and diagonal folds that project forth from the body and give the bust a more dynamic appearance. Rysbrack frequently intersperses smaller, more modest, folds in directional opposition to the main fold lines, adding a sense of movement to the bust’ (op. cit., p. 50). This extraordinary liveliness is enhanced by the striking verism of the faces of the ageing Earls, reflecting the specific features of the head Rysbrack was modelling, as ‘observed in the small mole or lump that is situated above Nottingham’s right eyebrow, near the centre of his brow’ and in ‘the pronounced veins emerging from the hairline and running down both the right and left sides of Orkney’s head; the eyes, deeply recessed under a very furrowed brow; and the Earl’s large, prominent nose …sharply off-setting his face, itself thinning with advancing age. That ageing effect is emphasised by the heavily scored facial lines running in a vertical but semi-circular pattern from below the eye sockets to the line of the mouth. The eyes, the nose and the lips are all rendered with the asymmetry that is typical in the human face’ (Wilson, op. cit, p. 48). As in the Sunderland, the two busts share the same classicising cropped hairstyle, beautifully enlivened by Rysbrack with curling tufts of hair.

The classical nature of the Orkney is epitomised by the absence of incised pupils, a feature of many of Rysbrack’s busts, e.g., the John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. The presentation of blank eyes in fact derives from a tradition of mistakenly believing that this was a classical practice, when on the contrary the eyes had often been inlaid with coloured stones, or the iris and pupil had been painted, the paints having been erased through the passage of time. In the 18^th century, however, as John Gage has noted, ‘Blank eyes reinforced the notion of the inherent ideality of classical art and were a congenial prop to the prevailing classicising aesthetic of sculpture’ (as quoted by Wilson, op. cit., p. 59, n. 60).

The Orkney is one of Rysbrack’s group of portraits of martial heroes, others including the series of busts of Marlborough, exemplified by those in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (inv. no. WA 1926.32) and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the bust of George II (Royal Collection, inv. no. RCIN 31322). In each of the three models, the sitter wears the paludamentum, a cloak fastened at the shoulder and worn by Roman military commanders. George II is presented with two dramatic lion pauldrons, and Marlborough with one at his left shoulder. It is significant that the motif is absent in the present bust. Rysbrack appears to have created a deliberate hierarchy of heroes, with the self-effacing Orkney instead depicted wearing the pteruges, flexible leather straps, of a centurion. As Wilson has posited, this presentation underscores both the modest character of Orkney, and Rysbrack’s ability to ‘read’ his sitters, and depict their “self-evident inner worthiness” (Matthew Craske, as quoted by Wilson, op. cit., p. 50). Rysbrack had a special connection to Orkney. In early June 1706 the occupying French and Spanish forces surrendered Antwerp (Rysbrack’s home city) to Marlborough’s generals, including Orkney.  As a twelve year old boy Rysbrack would have witnessed the event. That must have given the sculptor and Orkney ample opportunity for shared reminiscences during the sittings for the bust some 26 years later, providing an explanation for the sculptor’s ability to create one of his most insightful portraits ad vivum (Wilson, op. cit., p. 50).

A defining characteristic and wholly particular to Rysbrack is the beautifully executed, smooth, open back of the bust, with arches beneath the shoulders, seen in numerous busts by him including the Marlborough in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Nottingham. The slightly over-sized socle is similarly particular to the sculptor, and can be seen, for example, in the version of his George II in the Victoria and Albert Museum (inv. no. A.10:1 to 3-1932), and in his busts of Sir Peter Paul Rubens and Sir Anthony van Dyck (Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, inv. no. 1991p4). Wilson has also noted that typeface and arrangement of the lettering forming the inscription on the front of the integral base of the socle corresponds with inscriptions on other busts by Rysbrack, including the terracotta Queen Caroline (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. BK-NM-5760) and the John Barnerd as a boy (private collection), and notes that documentary evidence suggests the sculptor was responsible for many of his own inscriptions (Wilson, op. cit., p. 54).

In a letter to Alexander Pope (a friend of Orkney) on 4 December 1736, less than two months before Orkney’s death, the writer and politician George Lyttleton (later 1st Baron Lyttleton) wrote, ‘Lord Orkney …is a Man of great Merit to the Publick, … and who has been little Rewarded in proportion to the Services he has done.’ (cited by Wilson, op. cit., p. 57). Rysbrack’s outstanding portrait bust of Orkney appropriately immortalizes the Earl’s courage and his embodiment of the contemporary sacred values of liberty and civic virtue with their inextricable link to classical antiquity.

The Provenance

Lord Orkney’s main residences were at Cliveden and Taplow Court in Buckinghamshire, and at Albermarle Street, London. Given the fact that Cliveden was let to Frederick, Prince of Wales, within six months of Orkney’s death and was subsequently destroyed by fire in 1795, it seems likely that the bust would have been removed to Taplow Court, which remained in the family’s hands until 1852; the London home was also let continuously from 1740 (Wilson, op. cit., p. 56). Due to the loss of the Orkney family papers in the Cliveden fire, there are few records to elucidate the later history of the bust. A tantalizing reference almost certainly to the bust appears in a letter of 17 February 1737 written by one of Orkney’s sons-in-law, John Boyle, 5th Earl of Orrery and later also 5th Earl of Cork (Wilson, op. cit., p. 56). The bust was probably inherited by Lord Orkney’s daughter, Anne, 2nd Countess of Orkney suo jure, and possibly transferred to the Irish estates of her husband, William 4th Earl of Inchiquin. By the early 20th century, Rysbrack’s Orkney is described as being in the possession of Margaret Russell, Baroness Ampthill, daughter of the 6th Earl Beauchamp and wife of Arthur Oliver Villiers Russell, 2nd Baron Ampthill, briefly British Viceroy of India (Wilson, op. cit., p. 56). Baron Ampthill was the Great Grandson of John Russell, 6th Duke of Bedford (and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland). Ampthill’s mother was Lady Emily Theresa Villiers, a daughter of George Villiers, 4th Earl of Clarendon (of the second creation). Her great-grandfather, the 1st Earl of Clarendon (of the second creation) was the great-nephew of Lord Orkney’s wife, Lady Elizabeth Villiers, sister of the 1st Earl of Jersey. Although Lady Orkney predeceased her husband, it is possible that sometime after Lord Orkney’s death the present bust came into the possession of the descendants of his wife, passing in due course by descent to the 2nd Baron Ampthill. The Orkney was later in the collection of Denys Sutton, editor of Apollo, who died in 1991, before being sold in these rooms on 29-30 January 2009. Since 2010 the bust has been on display in the Hintze sculpture galleries at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

Sotheby's would like to thank Katharine Eustace FSA, author of 'Michael Rysbrack, sculptor, 1694-1770', for her assistance in cataloguing this lot.