pre-1800 Highlander portraits

[OC Richard]

I cannot bring this one to mind. What's the source?

I think it's the same one you referenced, at Blair Castle.

Dunbar's point is that it's not painted from life, but a later copy of the Jeremiah Davidson painted-from-life portrait in ordinary English dress, retro-fitted with Highland Dress.

I'll try to find the signed and dated Jeremiah Davidson English dress painting and see if it does look like the source of the unsigned undated no-provenance Highland Dress picture at Blair Castle.

[figheadair]

I think it's the same one you referenced, at Blair Castle.

Dunbar's point is that it's not painted from life, but a later copy of the Jeremiah Davidson painted-from-life portrait in ordinary English dress, retro-fitted with Highland Dress.

I'll try to find the signed and dated Jeremiah Davidson English dress painting and see if it does look like the source of the unsigned undated no-provenance Highland Dress picture at Blair Castle.

Yes, that's the one. One has to be careful with Dunbar, his History of Highland Dress is a superb resource but it is not without error due to research since its publication in 1960. Notwithstanding his assumption that the picture is by Davidson, I have never seen it attributed to him elsewhere. I know of three pictures of Lord George in non-highland clothes. The first is by Sir Robert Strange, he painted several versions of the Prince in tartan that appeared as propaganda miniatures, the second collected by Walter Blaikie, and a third of which I cannot find out anything but which was possibly the source of Blaikie's print.



A comparison of the Blair picture and the unsourced third engraving shows very similar features and allowing for artistic differences, they could be the same less the wig. Given the lack of an original of which the engraving is taken, it leaves a question hanging about whether the Blair picture is chicken or egg?

[OC Richard]

Yes one of those must be the portrait Dunbar was referencing, as the face of the Highland Dress picture is obviously based on either the centre or righthand portrait you show, if indeed either of those are the original. All three might based on a fourth painting.

Dunbar's assertion that the original was by Jeremiah Davidson suggests that he's referencing a signed work, but until it's found the jury is out.

[Allan Thomson]

John "The Bank" Campbell by William Mosman, 1759
https://www.natwestgroup.com/heritag...rait-1759.html

The painting was not on display when I visited in 1983. The pulled it out of storage and allowed to take detailed photographs. Figheadair was able to recreate the tartan, if I'm not mistaken


Pryse Campbell, Portrait by Francis Cotes, date (I don't know, mid-18th C) Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pryse_Campbell

I also surreptitiously got a photo of this portrait at Cawdor Castle.

Curious as an aside in the NatWest text it states his background implies he was Jacobite. Wasthis just an assumption as his family name implies to me he was unlikely to be a jacobite or is there something else that implies this?

[figheadair]

Curious as an aside in the NatWest text it states his background implies he was Jacobite. Wasthis just an assumption as his family name implies to me he was unlikely to be a jacobite or is there something else that implies this?

The Natwest statement is the result of a deductive error based on the myth of the tartan ban following the last Jacobite Rising.

I have written to their archivist to point our that Highland Clothes, for some men, in the Highlands, were forbidden, not tartan. I also pointed out that it therefore follows that the fact the Campbell was wearing tartan does not necessarily imply that he was a closet Jacobite and that there are contemporary portraits of a number of prominent Hanoverian supporters wearing Highland Dress too. They chose to be painted in it to highlight their Highland credentials rather than any Jacobite proclivities.

Hopefully they will correct the information shortly.

[OC Richard]

I did remove the Lord George Murray copyist painting with imaginary Highland dress from my list.

It really has to be put with all the Bonnie Prince Charlie paintings in fantasy Highland outfits.

The only paintings that have any hope of being accurate records of Highland Dress are portraits done from life of subjects who were wearing Highland outfits as they stood before the artist.

Also suspicious is the exceedingly strange anatomy in the John Campbell painting.

Dodgy anatomy is the red flag which signals the difference between the respected artist painting a subject from life, and the anonymous copyist.

(Witness the strange legs on the Lord George Murray copyist painting, which are front-on, while his body is at a 3/4 angle, and the oddly flat kilt which hides the juncture. Try standing with your hips straight-on but with your entire upper body at a 3/4 view, it's quite unnatural.)

[figheadair]

Dodgy anatomy is the red flag which signals the difference between the respected artist painting a subject from life, and the anonymous copyist.

Absolutely. My favourite example are the portraits of Alister Mhor Grant, Champion to the Laird of Grant and William Cumming, Piper to the Laird by Richard Waitt, 1714.

Note the absurd position of the sporran and the level of the pistol.


Follow the line of the sword from hilt to tip - not remotely in line.

[OC Richard]

Wow.

For sure Waitt is something of a "primitive" artist concerned with surface detail but not the best command of human anatomy. I wonder if he had formal training, it doesn't appear so. A different level altogether from Sir Joshua Reynolds, Sir Henry Raeburn, or John Singleton Copley.

Here are the two paintings with strange wide bloated lower bodies.

The artists are concerned with the heads and costumes, but don't seem to have much awareness or concern about the anatomy of the bodies.