Thomas Gainsborough, R.A.

William Witter, Tarporley, Chesire;
With Derek Johns, London, from whom purchased by the present collector.

M. Postle, Thomas Gainsborough, London 2002, p. 25 plate 21.

The following condition report has been provided by Simon Parkes of Simon Parkes Art Conservation, Inc. 502 East 74th St. New York, NY 212-734-3920, simonparkes@msn.com , an independent restorer who is not an employee of Sotheby's. This canvas has an effective old glue lining. The paint layer is slightly dirty but a fresh varnish will present it quite well. Under ultraviolet light the only restoration of note is visible to a small tear in the lower right. One can see that the paint layer is a little thin in the hair, in the shadowed portion of the lower part of the face, in the background and presumably in the cloak, yet whether there has been restoration beneath the old varnish, which we are unable to detect, is hard to tell and one should be aware of that possibility. A light cleaning in some areas will improve the picture, but a fresh varnish will also make it presentable.
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.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CONDITION OF A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD "AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE PRINTED IN THE CATALOGUE.

This work, which Martin Postle dates to circa 1770s, is after Van Dyck's original of 1638, now in a private collection.  Gainsborough frequently copied works by Old Master painters and today we know of at least eight copies after Van Dyck by his hand.  Gainsborough's copies, however, are not slavish reproductions of the originals, but masterpieces in their own right.  As Gainsborough's contemporary Sir Joshua Reynolds aptly noted, Gainsborough "occasionally made copies from Rubens, Teniers, and van Dyck, which it would be no disgrace to the most accurate connoisseur to mistake, at the first sight, for the works of those masters."¹

Gainsborough likely became familiar with the Van Dyck portrait of Sir Thomas Hanmer when he received a commission to paint the gentleman's descendents at Weston Park.  Gainsborough's Hanmer is more muted and more freely painted than is Van Dyck's original.  Gainsborough has eliminated superfluous detail and imbued it with his own personal aesthetic sensibility, while maintaining the elegance and grace that were synonymous with the Court Portraiture of Van Dyck. 

Thomas Hanmer was not only a well-connected member of England's aristocracy, but also a prominent horticulturist and writer. He was a close friend of John Evelyn and is said to have contributed a chapter to his unpublished text, Elysium Britannicum.²  In 1933 Hanmer's own manuscript was rediscovered and published as The Garden Book of Sir Thomas Hanmer.

The present portrait has been previously inspected firsthand by John Hayes, Sir Oliver Millar and Christopher Brown who all confirmed the attribution to Gainsborough.

 

1  J. Reynolds: Discourses on Art (London, 1778); ed. R. R. Wark (London, 1959/R New Haven and London, 1975) [14th discourse].
2  J. Martin, "Sir Thomas Hanmer" from The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.