DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68074#0060
3o ROUBILIAC AND HIS ENGLISH MASTERS
merit, of the tradition which, as I am informed, connects them with Roubi-
liac, of his mastery of that material as shown above all in the Sir John Cass of
1751, and of the likeness of the leaden Marlborough to the reproduction of the
lost bust reproduced on Wedgwood’s medallion (Pl. xina), it is safe, I think, to
attribute them to him. The erection of Rysbrack’s monument to the Duke at
Blenheim in 1733 must have given an impetus to the Marlborough cult through-
out England, and the death of Eugene in 1736 may well have provided the
occasion for companion statues of both. And in that year Roubiliac, as we
have seen, was in Cheere’s service.
Nor is it impossible that the Marlborough and Eugene came from Canons
also. Near the George II already described was ‘ a grove of statues ’ among
which was that of the duke,1 and the combination is certainly suggestive,
the rather that the neighbouring statue of Fame, once in the Senate House at
Cambridge, might well have had Eugene for another neighbour.
Whether the lead statues went to Glenham after their brief sojourn at
Timon’s Villa,
—When, invok’d by Cock’s enchanting tone,
As at Amphion’s call, each sculptur’d stone
Obsequious trembled at his hammer’s sound,
And fled, so summon’d, that unhappy ground,
there is nothing to show, since the only sale catalogue that I have seen is that
of the Canons pictures; if another exists, and includes a figure of the prince,
the conjecture as to their origin would become almost a certainty.
All three statues are as much decorative works, albeit of a high order, as
the fourth, the mantelpiece already mentioned, which like the George II is
known to have come from Canons. It is now in the Court Room of Gold-
smiths’ Hall, London, and as the only known instance of his work in the class,
his friend Hudson’s mantelpiece (Chapter XII) being lost, it is of some interest.2
Such commissions were frequently demanded from the sculptors of the day, as
the sale catalogues of Rysbrack and Scheemaker bear witness. Roubiliac did
very little of this profitable decorative work: the only entries in his sale cata-
logue which can be so interpreted are a lead Venus and Adonis, designs for a
fountain and a dial, and four designs for chimneypieces. The contrast in this
respect is astonishing when we see the mass turned out even by his distinguished
1 Nichol’s Literary History, i, pp. 65, 6g. Cock
was the famous auctioneer who conducted the sale
at Canons.
» I owe a photograph to the kindness of Dr. H.
Bellamy Gardner, who was good enough to obtain
me permission for its publication from the Gold-
smiths’ Company, a permission which is here grate-
fully acknowledged.
merit, of the tradition which, as I am informed, connects them with Roubi-
liac, of his mastery of that material as shown above all in the Sir John Cass of
1751, and of the likeness of the leaden Marlborough to the reproduction of the
lost bust reproduced on Wedgwood’s medallion (Pl. xina), it is safe, I think, to
attribute them to him. The erection of Rysbrack’s monument to the Duke at
Blenheim in 1733 must have given an impetus to the Marlborough cult through-
out England, and the death of Eugene in 1736 may well have provided the
occasion for companion statues of both. And in that year Roubiliac, as we
have seen, was in Cheere’s service.
Nor is it impossible that the Marlborough and Eugene came from Canons
also. Near the George II already described was ‘ a grove of statues ’ among
which was that of the duke,1 and the combination is certainly suggestive,
the rather that the neighbouring statue of Fame, once in the Senate House at
Cambridge, might well have had Eugene for another neighbour.
Whether the lead statues went to Glenham after their brief sojourn at
Timon’s Villa,
—When, invok’d by Cock’s enchanting tone,
As at Amphion’s call, each sculptur’d stone
Obsequious trembled at his hammer’s sound,
And fled, so summon’d, that unhappy ground,
there is nothing to show, since the only sale catalogue that I have seen is that
of the Canons pictures; if another exists, and includes a figure of the prince,
the conjecture as to their origin would become almost a certainty.
All three statues are as much decorative works, albeit of a high order, as
the fourth, the mantelpiece already mentioned, which like the George II is
known to have come from Canons. It is now in the Court Room of Gold-
smiths’ Hall, London, and as the only known instance of his work in the class,
his friend Hudson’s mantelpiece (Chapter XII) being lost, it is of some interest.2
Such commissions were frequently demanded from the sculptors of the day, as
the sale catalogues of Rysbrack and Scheemaker bear witness. Roubiliac did
very little of this profitable decorative work: the only entries in his sale cata-
logue which can be so interpreted are a lead Venus and Adonis, designs for a
fountain and a dial, and four designs for chimneypieces. The contrast in this
respect is astonishing when we see the mass turned out even by his distinguished
1 Nichol’s Literary History, i, pp. 65, 6g. Cock
was the famous auctioneer who conducted the sale
at Canons.
» I owe a photograph to the kindness of Dr. H.
Bellamy Gardner, who was good enough to obtain
me permission for its publication from the Gold-
smiths’ Company, a permission which is here grate-
fully acknowledged.