[Pg 172]
[Pg 173]
[Pg 174]

CHAPTER VII

SAMUEL COOPER

As Hilliard has made us familiar with the features of the most distinguished members of the Court of Elizabeth, so, a hundred years later, did Samuel Cooper, that "admirable workman and good company" as Pepys describes him, draw for us on a few inches of cardboard the presentment of the Cromwell family and many of the men and beautiful women who made up the entourage of the second Charles.

Samuel Cooper, in whom, it has been said, the art of miniature painting culminated, was born in London, in 1609. He came of an artistic stock, his uncle being John Hoskins, himself a painter of no mean reputation, as we have just seen. Samuel was instructed by his elder brother Alexander in the art of limning, and both brothers are reputed to have been the pupils of their uncle. Be that as it may, Samuel spent much of his life on the Continent, and was intimate with many of the eminent men of his day. Pepys frequently mentions the artist in terms of warm commendation. Possibly the fact that he was an excellent musician endeared him to the amiable diarist, who, under the date "1668, July 10th," says: "To Cooper's, and there find my wife.... And here he do work finely, though I fear it will not be so like as I expected; but now I understand his great skill in music, his playing and setting to the French lute most excellently, and he speaks French, and indeed is an excellent man." This visit is explained by a previous entry, on March 29th: "Harris ... hath persuaded me to have Cooper draw my wife's portrait, which, though it cost £30, yet will I have done." Thirty pounds in those days was, of course, a considerable sum of money, but it seems to have been Cooper's usual price for a miniature, as we learn from the record of another visit to the painter in the pages of the immortal diary: "To Cooper's, where I spent all the afternoon with my wife and girl, seeing him make an end of her picture, which he did to my great content, though not so great as I confess I expected, being not satisfied in the greatness of the resemblance, nor in the blue garment; but it is most certainly a most rare piece of work as to the painting. He hath £30 for his work, and the chrystal and case and gold case comes to £8 3s. 4d., and which I sent him this night that I might be out of his debt." Elsewhere Pepys relates visiting the artist's studio and being much struck with the miniature of "one Swinfen, Secretary to my Lord Manchester.... This fellow died in debt and never paid Cooper for this picture.... Cooper himself did buy it [from the creditors], and give £25 out[Pg 177]
[Pg 178]
[Pg 179] of his purse for it, for what he was to have had but £30."

The market value of Cooper's miniatures, however, very rapidly rose. Thus we find Walpole writing in February, 1758, to Sir Horace Mann: "But our glaring extravagance is in the constant high price given for pictures.... I know but one dear picture not sold (this was at Mr. Furnese's auction)—Cooper's head of O. Cromwell, an unfinished miniature. They asked me four hundred pounds for it."

Of this masterpiece, which Cunningham correctly assumes to be "the one mentioned elsewhere as in the possession of Lady Franklin, widow of Sir Thomas, a descendant of Cromwell, of which there is an exquisite copy in the Harley Collection at Welbeck, made in 1723 by Bernard Lens," Dallaway says it is related in the family that Cromwell surprised Cooper while he was copying the portrait and indignantly took it away with him. The original was shown at Burlington House in 1879, being then in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch. It formerly belonged to Mr. Henry Cromwell Frankland, of Chichester, who inherited it through a daughter of Lady Elizabeth Claypole. The Lady Frankland (not Franklin) mentioned above was the grand-daughter of Oliver Cromwell.

The Protector and his family seem to have been very favourite subjects of the painter. Thus in the Loan Collection of 1865, out of some eighty or ninety miniatures ascribed to Cooper there were no less than seven of Oliver Cromwell, and almost as many of his daughters and of Richard Cromwell. A very beautiful example is the portrait of Oliver's second and favourite daughter, Elizabeth Claypole, who is said to have upbraided her father for his share in the death of Charles I. and his cruelty in sanctioning the execution of the Royalist agent, Dr. Hewitt. It is signed S. C. 1655 and belongs to the Duke of Devonshire, who also possesses a very fine portrait of the Protector, of which a French critic, M. de Conches, has remarked that Cooper was a man who knew how to enlarge the style of a miniature, and that this particular specimen was as vigorous as oil, perfectly modelled and firm in touch. In the same collection is the profile drawing on paper in pen and brown ink from which Houbraken engraved his portrait. At Stafford House is another portrait of Oliver, and also a very interesting example of the pencil studies from which the artist used to paint his miniatures. It was in connection with this portrait that Walpole gave it as his opinion that "If his portrait of Cromwell could be so enlarged [to the size of one of Van Dyck's pictures], I do not know but Van Dyck would appear less great by comparison." This is the portrait referred to by Walpole above. The Duke of Buccleuch possesses another Cooper of unsurpassed interest—Cromwell's Latin Secretary. This portrait of the poet fully bears out the description of Aubrey, who says that Milton "had light browne haire. His complexion exceeding fayre, oval face, his eie a dark gray. He was a spare man."

Another characteristic of Cooper's work is that he frequently leaves his miniatures unfinished, being content, apparently, as soon as he had seized the[Pg 181]
[Pg 182]
[Pg 183] likeness. It was this peculiarity, doubtless, that gave rise to Walpole's disparaging, and, it must be contended, unjust remark that "Cooper, with so much merit, had two defects: his skill was confined to a mere head; his drawing of the neck and shoulders so incorrect and untoward that it seems to account for the number of his works unfinished. It looks as if he was sensible how small a way his talent extended[!] This very properly accounts for the other [defect], his want of grace, a signal deficiency in a painter of portraits, yet how seldom possessed."

As to this latter deficiency, it is very much a matter of opinion. Those who have seen the portrait at Windsor of the Duke of Monmouth when young will hardly be disposed to allow it; indeed, when we have such an amazing power of seizing character, and such breadth of delineation, we can afford to dispense with mere superficial prettiness. And, to return to Walpole's first contention, it is surely unlikely that the artist who could portray such subtleties of character and expression as Cooper did should not have been able to extend his talent "so small a way" as to draw necks and shoulders if he had been so minded.

In the Royal Collection is a head of Charles II., which with another of George Monck, Duke of Albemarle, and that of Monmouth mentioned above, form a trio of portraits difficult to surpass for character and simplicity, although the two last are unfinished. There is, however, no want of finish in the elaborate picture of Charles II., wearing the Robes of the Garter, which belongs to the Duke of Richmond, and is preserved at Goodwood. It is one of the largest and finest examples of the master, and gives more dignity to that cynical voluptuary than any portrait of him with which I am acquainted.

It has been said that Cooper's portraits of women are inferior to his portraits of men, and, on the whole, I think this must be conceded.

In the Dyce Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum will be found a series of fourteen more or less unfinished miniatures attributed to Samuel Cooper, and shown with a pocket-book in which they were found, which formerly belonged to Mr. Edwin H. Lawrence.

I have used the word "attributed" advisedly, because several of these miniatures, attractive as they are, seem to me to lack the supreme quality of Samuel Cooper's work. Some, it has been suggested, recall Flatman[3] rather, or, as I think more likely, Dixon. They are in various stages of completion, and show the artist's method of working; well drawn and broadly treated, they are excellent work, and most interesting, technically speaking.

The biographical details to be gleaned of this English master miniature painter seem to be meagre in the extreme, and still slighter are they in the case of his elder brother Alexander. I recall two examples of the latter's work, both in the Royal Library at Windsor; one a portrait of Sir John King, a highly[Pg 185]
[Pg 186]
[Pg 187] successful lawyer of his day, a favourite of King Charles II., who intended to make him Attorney-General; but he died when only thirty-eight, and lies buried in the Temple Church. Granger says of him: "Such was his reputation and so extensive his practice that in the latter part of his life his fees amounted to forty and fifty pounds a day." His portrait is given on p. 141. The other is of James Stuart, created second Duke of Richmond in 1641. This nobleman is noteworthy as being one of the four who offered their lives to save King Charles I.

There is great strength and force of character in the portrait of this staunch Royalist. Technically, however, both pieces are inferior to the work of Samuel Cooper.

[Pg 188]
[Pg 189]

[Pg 190]
[Pg 191]