As I’m pressed for time I’m just going to post verbatim a report I’ve received from the Camerons about the Malmesbury Judgement of Paris. It is important new evidence, and comes from no other source than Hansard, the record of Parliamentary proceedings. I agree with GC; the timing is weird given that I’ve just posted about connoisseurship, Eastlake and the painting itself. Are the gods looking down on this blog!
| An example of Hansard from the 19th century. |
Verbatim from Graeme and Norman Cameron.
“Important New Research Evidence of Lord Malmesbury's "The Judgement of Paris" involving 'Sir Charles Eastlake' and the painting's 'Louvre Paris Exhibition', and also 'Connoisseurship Matters' in The House of Lords Hansard, of July 1869.
In a fascinating twist of providence, a valuable historical account has now been discovered by art researchers Graeme and Norman Cameron, with direct links to the same Three Topics covered in "Art History Today's" recent Posts. In an amazing coincidence, further significant new evidence as to the distinguished status of Lord Malmesbuy's painting comes from no less than the House of Lords, London Debate Report, in the Hansard of 26th. July 1869..
It concerns the National Gallery London's picture purchases, particularly of a Rembrandt, in the course of which, Lord Malmesbury contributes observations to the Debate. In a lengthy response he refers to a Letter of Attestation he has from the Late Sir Charles Eastlake; ( this Letter was earlier cited in these Posts, but its contents were unknown ). However, Eastlake's letter said, "It was one of the finest Giorgione's he had ever seen". This unequivocal statement from the still revered former the inaugural Director of the National Gallery, London, Artist & Connoisseur, when added to those of Prof. Gustave Waagen, Dr. J D Passavant, and Sir Martin Conway, shows just how acclaimed this painting was in the 19thC.
More importantly, Lord Malmesbury's speech reveals that Eastlake's regard for the painting was such that he arranged for "The Judgement of Paris" to be exhibited at the Louvre in Paris the late 1860's. Interestingly whilst there, a Louvre official expressed "it was not by "Giorgione" but another "Venetian Master", (Titian?)
This adds a most significant previously uncited "foreign" Exhibition credential to this painting's already extensive United Kingdom exhibition record and shows just how acclaimed this masterpiece was by both doyen Connoisseurs and the general public, as confirmed at both Manchester & Leeds Art Treasures Exhibitions and those at the RA's "Burlington House", etc..
Lord Malmesbury's speech also gives fascinating insights into his family's ownership and custodianship of the painting, especially his generous allowing weekly private viewing to art loving admirers at his Stafford Place residence, and gives other rare insights on 19thC collecting and altruism, which are equally relevant even today.”
The relevant section of the debate is below, the reference to the Judgement, its exhibition in Paris, and the Louvre curator’s non-Giorgione attribution comes right at the end. Here’s a link to the whole of the Lord's debate of 1869, on Hansard’s web site. Now why can’t David Cameron- who studied art history at Eton- start a debate on the merits of connoisseurship and attribution in the Commons!
| The Upper Chamber, the House of Lords. |
Relevant section
The Earl of Malmesbury said, they must all feel obliged to the noble Lord (Lord Overstone) for his explanation, which showed that the Trustees displayed their judgment without fear or favour in choosing pictures for the National Gallery. If, indeed, there were any part of the noble Lord's speech with which he felt inclined to find fault, it was that in which he appeared to be more than displeased at these Questions having been put. The noble Lord must be aware that Questions of this kind, when asked in either House, were not only perfectly fair in a Parliamentary point of view, but were likewise a proof of the great interest felt by the public in the success of the National Gallery. He was sure that the noble Lord himself did not desire that the people of this country should wander in stupid silence through the rooms in which these pictures were hung, and no one with such a liberal mind as his could find fault with the remarks and criticisms, however extraordinary, which those who inspected the treasures of art preserved in the Gallery might make. These were after all, nothing more nor less than expressions of opinion. The noble lord had styled the Questions put to him this evening as ungenerous Questions; but for his own part he (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought they were evidences of the pride and interest which all persons in this country, whatever their rank might be, took in the art treasures which were to be found in our National Gallery. He maintained that it was entirely a matter of opinion as to whether a picture were genuine or not, and more especially must this be the case with regard to pictures painted by the Old Masters. When it was considered that upwards of three centuries had elapsed since the Venetians put their pencils to the canvass, it was obviously impossible to have what in a court of justice would be called complete and positive evidence that such and such a picture was painted by such and such a man who lived in the 16th century; all we could do was to trace the pedigrees and successive owners of these pictures, and to draw an inference from the facts as to whether they were genuine or not. 663 Most of the paintings in the National Gallery had, he believed, passed through that ordeal, and might be regarded with pride and confidence as genuine works of the Masters to whom they were ascribed. If it had not been for the Questions put this evening, the public would not have had the advantage of being acquainted with the complete pedigrees of the pictures to which the noble Lord had referred. Considering the great difficulty of identifying ancient pictures, he could not but admire the characteristic sagacity of a certain class of collectors—he meant those men who, having in the course of a life of practical business accumulated large fortunes, and having great taste and a desire to form galleries of pictures, almost universally discarded the Old School and laid out their money in purchasing modern pictures, the genuineness of which could be ascertained far more readily than the authenticity of works alleged to be by the Old Masters. This circumstance showed that the public were excusable if they were suspicious and timid with respect to purchasing pictures of the Old Masters; and the noble Lord and his Colleagues—for whose exertions he felt assured the country was deeply grateful —must occasionally expect Questions similar to those which had been asked this evening. The noble Lord had quoted various authorities; but it would not be difficult to show that those authorities did not agree among themselves. He himself possessed a picture which for the last 100 years had been deemed to be an undoubted Giorgione. Some lovers of art used to come to look at it two or three times a week, and he had a letter from the late Sir Charles Eastlake, in which he stated it was one of the finest Giorgiones he had ever seen. Yet when he sent that picture to the Exhibition at Paris, a gentleman employed at the Louvre pronounced it to be the work, not of Giorgione, but of another Venetian master. Indeed, he believed there was only one way of discovering the real authors of these ancient pictures —namely, by calling in the aid of spiritualism, and bringing ourselves into correspondence with Mr. Home, who should be requested to interrogate Giorgione, Titian, and other great artists on the subject. Until their Lordships believed in spiritualism, however, they must rely upon opinions such as had been adduced 664 this evening by the noble Lord (Lord Overstone.)
What a great site this. I love the neat layout? Thanks for the comments too.
http://www.blog-v.com/huamei/
http://maweisong.exteen.com/
http://nen360.nenonline.org/blog/liushan
http://luohansong.postbit.com/
Posted by: dzone | 07/28/2012 at 08:31 AM