Footnotes

• Note:
  The early biographers of Raeburn often refer to a relationship with the painter David Martin when the younger man was making the transition from miniature painter to working on full-scale portraiture. Martin is usually said to have given Raeburn some of his own works to copy, only to be profoundly upset when his 'pupil' sold one of his copies as his own work. The evidence for this story would seem to have originated with Raeburn's great grandson, William Raeburn Andrew. That there may in fact be some substance to this story is given credence by the existence of two very similar portraits of Robert Cunninghame Graham, the well-known image in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery and the portrait now offered for sale.
  
  Although entirely by Raeburn, the Portrait Gallery version has important features which very strongly recall the work of Martin, particularly the meticulous manner in which the head is painted, and also the presence in the background of the bust of Charles James Fox, the reformer whom Graham supported in Parliament. (A version of this bust by the sculptor Joseph Nollekens was included in the recent exhibition, 'Citizens and Kings', at the Royal Academy in London.) The present picture has these same features but the handling of certain areas of the painting suggest that both Martin and Raeburn worked on it: the face seems entirely the work of Martin, while the far broader treatment of the remainder of the painting is characteristic of Raeburn's style.
  
  It is suggested here that a possible sequence of events in the making of the two paintings was as follows. Martin would have begun the present painting while still working in London, completing the head in its entirety and laying in the composition of the portrait – besides the positioning of the Nollekens bust, the gesture of the arm and pointing hand are again typical features of paintings by Martin. Later, when Martin had returned to Edinburgh with his unfinished painting, he would have handed it over to Raeburn to complete, which he did in the characteristically broad manner which he was developing after his return from Rome. Raeburn then made (during 1794, for Hugh Innes of Balmacara, as a letter from the artist attests) a copy of the entire work, in his own style, but preserving the style of Martin in the head. These are the circumstances in which the quarrel between two painters could have taken place.
  
  Both paintings would therefore seem to illustrate an important phase in Raeburn's early career. This is particularly the case with the painting now offered for sale, where Raeburn is seen working in conjunction with one of his most important predecessors.
  
  Literature: James Greig, 'Sir Henry Raeburn, R.A.', London 1911, p. 47
  TCF Brotchie, 'Henry Raeburn', London 1924, pp. 23, 33-35
  David Mackie, 'Raeburn: Life and Art', unpublished thesis, University of
  Edinburgh 1994, catalogue no. 340
  Duncan Thomson (et al), 'Raeburn: The Art of Sir Henry Raeburn 1756-
  1823', exhibition catalogue, National Galleries of Scotland 1997, p. 13
  (reproducing the present version in error for the Portrait Gallery version)
  
  
  Many thanks for Dr Duncan Thomson for his contribution in cataloguing this painting.
  
  
  Educated at Glasgow University (he later became an active lord rector, replacing Edmund Burke), Robert went to Jamaica in 1752 and stayed as a planter and politician until 1770 when he returned to Britain as laird of Ardoch, Dunbartonshire. Influenced by his friends CJ Fox and Sheridan, he became active politically and represented Stirlingshire in parliament 1794-'96. His support for political reform was evident in his (unsuccessful) attempt to introduce a bill of rights, which to some extent foreshadowed the Reform Bill of 1832. Robert's 'Bill of Rights' is clearly evident on the desk in this portrait.
  (J Walker, DNB entry, OUP, 2004-06.)

---

Category: Fine Art / Pictures

---

Auction terms and conditions