DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68074#0228
128 ROUBILIAC’S SHAKESPEARES
simplicity of the original. Mr. Spielmann regards it and the Jonson as com-
missions from Giffard on the re-fitting of the theatre.
Whether the ‘ remarkable fine ’ terra-cotta sold along with the busts of
Handel and Milton at the Stanley Sale in 1786 (p. 52) was of this type it is
impossible to say; that it was not a replica of the curiously clumsy and
probably very early terra-cotta exhibited by the late Mr. Rixon at White-
chapel in 1910 and recently (1924) presented by his daughter to the Victoria
and Albert Museum may be looked upon as certain. This work has nothing
in common with any other Roubiliac Shakespeare, but bears a curious
resemblance, in costume at least, to the bust round which Garrick throws
his arm in Prior Park in Gainsborough’s famous picture. But it shows no
trace of the influence of the Chandos portrait, and artistically is much
inferior to the rest.
I have already suggested (Chapter VIII) that a bust of Shakespeare familiar
in plaster casts may be one of the set sent by Lord Chesterfield to Madame du
Bocage. Far more important is the marble bust in the possession of Mr. A. R.
Fordham (Plate xlii Z>), representing the poet with a soft plain collar closed at
the neck and tied with cords ending in large tassels which fall over a close
doublet fastened with two buttons and encircled by a cloak which runs from
right to left as in the Garrick statue, not left to right as in the Davenant, and
the countenance is serener and less careworn. The ear-ring in the left ear
connects it with the Chandos portrait, and though it is unsigned, it may, like
the Charles I, have been signed upon a lost pedestal. The technique of the
sculptor is unmistakable and triumphant: the very indentations of the stitches
fastening the silk lining to the thick stuff of the cloak are visible on close exami-
nation. Its history before 1859 is unknown; it was then bought as a Roubiliac
by the present owner’s grandfather, and no other cast, model, or copy appears
to be known. That it was executed when Roubiliac was familiar with the
Chandos portrait is certain, and if less Berninesque than the Davenant type,
it is almost as accomplished.1
We may conclude this chapter with a few miscellaneous works, of which the
first and most important is the lost statue variously known as Religion or the
Christian Faith.
Works of a definitely religious order are very rare in English art after the
Reformation until Flaxman took it upon himself, perhaps too consciously, to
Christianize sculpture. Even Scheemaker and Rysbrack, devout Catholics both,
1 Whether the marble copy of Roubiliac’s bust 186g was a copy of any of these types there is no
of Shakespeare by Francis exhibited at Leeds in evidence to show.
simplicity of the original. Mr. Spielmann regards it and the Jonson as com-
missions from Giffard on the re-fitting of the theatre.
Whether the ‘ remarkable fine ’ terra-cotta sold along with the busts of
Handel and Milton at the Stanley Sale in 1786 (p. 52) was of this type it is
impossible to say; that it was not a replica of the curiously clumsy and
probably very early terra-cotta exhibited by the late Mr. Rixon at White-
chapel in 1910 and recently (1924) presented by his daughter to the Victoria
and Albert Museum may be looked upon as certain. This work has nothing
in common with any other Roubiliac Shakespeare, but bears a curious
resemblance, in costume at least, to the bust round which Garrick throws
his arm in Prior Park in Gainsborough’s famous picture. But it shows no
trace of the influence of the Chandos portrait, and artistically is much
inferior to the rest.
I have already suggested (Chapter VIII) that a bust of Shakespeare familiar
in plaster casts may be one of the set sent by Lord Chesterfield to Madame du
Bocage. Far more important is the marble bust in the possession of Mr. A. R.
Fordham (Plate xlii Z>), representing the poet with a soft plain collar closed at
the neck and tied with cords ending in large tassels which fall over a close
doublet fastened with two buttons and encircled by a cloak which runs from
right to left as in the Garrick statue, not left to right as in the Davenant, and
the countenance is serener and less careworn. The ear-ring in the left ear
connects it with the Chandos portrait, and though it is unsigned, it may, like
the Charles I, have been signed upon a lost pedestal. The technique of the
sculptor is unmistakable and triumphant: the very indentations of the stitches
fastening the silk lining to the thick stuff of the cloak are visible on close exami-
nation. Its history before 1859 is unknown; it was then bought as a Roubiliac
by the present owner’s grandfather, and no other cast, model, or copy appears
to be known. That it was executed when Roubiliac was familiar with the
Chandos portrait is certain, and if less Berninesque than the Davenant type,
it is almost as accomplished.1
We may conclude this chapter with a few miscellaneous works, of which the
first and most important is the lost statue variously known as Religion or the
Christian Faith.
Works of a definitely religious order are very rare in English art after the
Reformation until Flaxman took it upon himself, perhaps too consciously, to
Christianize sculpture. Even Scheemaker and Rysbrack, devout Catholics both,
1 Whether the marble copy of Roubiliac’s bust 186g was a copy of any of these types there is no
of Shakespeare by Francis exhibited at Leeds in evidence to show.