European and British Art, Part II

European and British Art, Part II

View full screen - View 1 of Lot 148. Portrait of Mary, Lady Gerard in a Green Dress.

Property from the Collection of Sir Michael Smurfit

Sir William Orpen R.A., R.H.A.

Portrait of Mary, Lady Gerard in a Green Dress

Lot Closed

July 13, 02:46 PM GMT

Estimate

15,000 - 20,000 GBP

Lot Details

Description

Property from the Collection of Sir Michael Smurfit

Sir William Orpen R.A., R.H.A.

1878 - 1931

Portrait of Mary, Lady Gerard in a Green Dress


signed and dated ORPEN 1904 lower right

oil on canvas, oval

Unframed: 99 by 67cm., 39 by 26¼in.

Framed: 124.5 by 93cm., 49 by 36½in.

Lady Gerard and thence by family descent circa 1955

Sale: Christie’s, London, 8 November 1990, lot 48

Sale: Christie’s, Dublin, 29 June 1994, lot 186

Sale: Christie's, London, 9 May 1996, lot 106

Purchased at the above sale by the present owner 

P.G. Konody & Sidney Dark, Sir William Orpen, Artist and Man, Seeley, Service & Co, 1932, p. 266
Bruce Arnold, Orpen, Mirror to an Age, Jonathan Cape, London, 1981, p. 116-118

In May 1903, the young Orpen encountered the recently widowed Mary Emmeline Laura, Lady Gerard (1854-1918). A grande dame from the infamous ‘Marlborough House Set’, Lady Gerard was the daughter of Henry Beilby Milner, second son of the fourth Baron Milner. Her husband, William, second Baron Gerard (1851-1902), was an army officer with an estate at Eastwell Park in Kent, a large Tudor mansion that had previously been tenanted by Prince Albert, Edward VII’s younger brother.


As Arnold recounts, the present commission originated with the completion of Orpen’s portrait of the sitter’s nephew by marriage, Lord Scarborough, at the end of 1902. Upon arrival in May 1903, the young painter discovered that the house party consisted of ‘Duchesses, Dukes, Ladys (sic) Viscounts etc’, and his grand entrance was the occasion of a Chaplin-esque debacle on a slippery floor (Arnold 1981, p. 117). When the weekend party dispersed, he settled down to work, attended only by the sitter’s daughter, an aged Lady’s maid, and another Lady ‘far on in consumption’. These unusual circumstances meant that Orpen was nervous when completing his work, and yet before he left Eastwell Park, he was able to report to his wife, Grace, that ‘they think Lady Gerard’s portrait is very like her, which is lucky’ (Arnold p. 118). He charged £75 for the painting.


Despite his misgivings, approval by the sitter’s friends and family signified that Orpen had intuitively understood what was required of him. Of a different era, Lady Gerard would expect, even in a work of this size, a sense of the grandeur of her social status. She was not paying for Sargent, but her portrait should, nevertheless, command the room in which it hung. The eye should first be captured by her brilliant chrome green dress, before pausing on her likeness. A parapet, swags, and the suggestion of cumulus clouds complete an ensemble that might complement a Reynolds or Gainsborough sitter, while the fall of her delicate fingers from a glorious sleeve should be worthy of Van Dyck (for example, Sir Anthony Van Dyck, Lord John Stuart and his brother Lord Bernard Stuart, c. 1638, National Gallery, London).


We are grateful to Professor Kenneth McConkey for writing this catalogue entry.