Note: Sir Rowland Winn’s commode is considered a masterpiece of English 18th century furniture, illustrating the confidence of design and craftsmanship for which Chippendale is renowned. It is the only documented example of a carved mahogany commode by Chippendale in the neo-classical style, and is one of his earliest pieces of furniture marking the transition from his Director phase to neo-classicism (1). It is undoubtedly one of Chippendale’s most prestigious and significant pieces of case furniture remaining in a private collection.

The commode has an illustrious history; it was supplied to Sir Rowland Winn, 5th Baronet (1739-85), probably for his London house at 11 St. James’s Square in circa 1767-68. On 14 February 1769, Chippendale invoiced Sir Rowland: ‘To a neat Nest of Mahogany drawers and pidgeon wood holes with an Ivory Alphabet made to fit into a Cupboard’ (2). In 1785, and following Sir Rowland’s demise, the house was sold and the contents included in a sale arranged by James Christie. However, this commode, almost certainly lot 7, ‘A large mahogany commode chest of drawers and leather cover’, was withdrawn. The commode was moved back to the family’s principal seat, Nostell Priory, Yorkshire where it remained until sold at auction on 6 May 1807, lot 283, by Mr. Phillips. In 1952, the commode was acquired by Samuel Messer (d. 1991), one of the most significant and discerning collectors of English furniture of the mid-late 20th century, whose collection was assembled with the assistance of the furniture connoisseur and writer, R.W. Symonds (d. 1958), and sold in Messer’s landmark sale from where it was acquired by the present owner. 

SIR ROWLAND WINN, 11 ST. JAMES’S SQUARE AND CHIPPENDALE 

Sir Rowland Winn purchased no. 11 St. James’s Square, London in May 1766 from the widowed Lady Macclesfield (3). The move to London from Yorkshire in 1763 was almost certainly prompted by Sir Rowland’s aspiring political ambitions and the opportunity for he and his wife, the Swiss-born Sabine, only daughter of Jacques-Philippe d’Herwart, governor of Vichy, to immerse themselves in the social round. This was particularly true of Sabine, who found English rural life difficult, and had a fractious relationship with her husband’s family. In December 1763, Ann Elizabeth Winn, Sir Rowland’s aunt, wrote disparagingly to her brother, the 4th Baronet: ‘She [Sabine] loves variety, & may truly be Cald Lady Restles’ (4). 

Following Sir Rowland’s inheritance of the baronetcy in 1765, the architect-designer, Robert Adam (1728-92) was engaged to complete the interiors of the library, drawing room, saloon and top hall at Nostell, although he was not employed at 11 St. James’s Square until the near-completion of Nostell’s interiors in 1774, at which date he made a design to reface the house (5). However, he undoubtedly recommended Chippendale to Sir Rowland ‘as a cabinet maker who could be safely trusted to supply high quality furniture which harmonized sensitively with the refined décor’ (6). Adam continued to advise Sir Rowland on his choice of craftsmen: an aide-mémoire, dated 1772, in Sir Rowland’s hand, entitled ‘To Mention to Mr Adam’ includes the note: ‘Who to Employ for a Cabinet Maker and what Kind of Furniture to order for Drawing Room, Saloon’ (7). By the late 1760s, Chippendale was simultaneously working for Sir Rowland in London and in Yorkshire, but it seems likely, as Gilbert suggests, that the refurbishment of London came first. 

The Nostell archive comprises correspondence (thirty-five letters and memoranda) between Chippendale and Sir Rowland, estimates and bills that span 1766-85, and is the most comprehensive account for Chippendale. There is a large bill for London and a later account has entries for 11 St. James’s Square combined with those for Nostell making it difficult to identify furniture for a particular mansion. However, almost all the items billed between June 1766 and June 1767 were probably for London, as were most of what was billed for June 1767 to February 1768. From the surviving accounts, Sir Rowland’s furniture at 11 St. James’s Square appears modest, especially when compared to Nostell, and it is surprising that he and Lady Winn, who undoubtedly followed the London social season, would have been content to settle with only unexceptional or second-hand furniture at their London address, which they retained for twenty years (8). 

Only three pieces of significant furniture feature in the surviving ‘Town Account’, including: on 21 June 1766, ‘To a large bedstead with Mahogany feet posts fluted…’ that together with hangings and bedding came to over £50. The description of this bed corresponds exactly to one sold from the principal bedchamber in the Christie’s sale of the contents of 11 St. James’s Square, 9 and 11 April 1785, p. 9, lot 1. On 23 June 1766, ‘A very large mahogany bookcase with Glass doors and a pediment top £38’ is recorded in the accounts; this is possibly a bookcase listed in the 1785 sale, in room ‘No. XIV. The Study’, p. 10, lot 3, £24 3s, described as: ‘A mahogany library BOOK CASE with glass doors, 12 feet 3 wide by 9 feet high’. Finally, and again in the accounts, on 24 June 1766, ‘A Mahogany Lady secretary made of very fine wood, a bookcase at top, panelld doors with pidgeon holes and drawers in the uper case and a scrowl pediment £25’. Notably, there is no bill for ‘A large mahogany commode chest of drawers and leather cover’, p. 9, lot 7, in the 1785 sale, which was withdrawn, as noted in Christie’s auctioneer’s book. 

THE DISCOVERY OF CHIPPENDALE’S BILL 

The crucial link associating Sir Rowland Winn’s commode to Chippendale was the identification of a bill in the Nostell papers at the time the commode sold from the Messer collection in December 1991. On 14 February 1769, Chippendale invoiced Sir Rowland: ‘To a neat Nest of Mahogany drawers and pidgeon wood holes with an Ivory Alphabet made to fit into a Cupboard’ (9). As Christopher Gilbert noted in 1991: ‘This almost certainly refers to replacing one of the original drawers with a two-unit sliding letter-rack made of mahogany with a pigeon wood façade inlaid with an ivory alphabet [now 'ivorine']. It is implausible that Chippendale would have modified a piece of furniture made by one of his rivals’ (10). This adaptation of the commode evidently signifies a change of use, and is an invaluable insight into the status and use of the commode. The identification of the use of 'pidgeon wood' in the spandrels to the pigeon-holes is key to Chippendale because it so aptly describes the interior fittings of this commode including the identification of the two contrasting woods. Furthermore, several of Chippendale’s bills mention the use of pidgeon wood; in 1765, Chippendale invoiced Sir Lawrence Dundas (1710-81) for ‘a large 8 leg Mahogany table border’d with Pidgeon wood’, and a year later, Sir Rowland Winn was in receipt of two rosewood card-tables inlaid with pidgeon wood for Nostell (11). 

Furthermore, the overwhelming evidence of the presence of this commode in the collection of Sir Rowland is a sale (no. 629) held by Mr. H. Phillips, 68 New Bond Street, on Wednesday 6 May 1807, lot 283, a copy of which is preserved in the Nostell archive: ‘A mahogany chest, inlaid with ivory, and ebony, and leather case’ that achieved £6 5s. A subsequent sale held on 20 May 1807 by the same auctioneer, sale no. 631, and also in the archive, is described as ‘the property of A NOBLEMAN removed from his mansion in Yorkshire’; the presence of both sale catalogues in the Nostell archive underlines that the contents of both sales were from Nostell. 

THE DESIGN 

This commode is closely related to a design by Chippendale, circa 1762, from the Chippendale Albums, no. 174, held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; another comparable design also in this collection, no. 173, was engraved for the 1762 edition of the Director LXVIII (12). This second design is described thus: ‘The Ornaments may be Brass; that on the Right hath two Doors, which represent Drawers, and a long Drawer above’.Chippendale was in turn perhaps inspired by a design by Jean Bérain (1638-1711), the artistic force in Louis XIV’s Royal office of the Menus-Plaisirs du Roi, who published a design for a commode with a closely comparable foot in L’Oeuvre Complet de Jean Bérain, Paris, n.d., pl. 88. Chippendale’s design was also probably influenced by a knowledge of Adam’s recent work; the commode’s ebony inlay reflecting the influence of Adam’s Etruscan style that became fashionable particularly for bedroom apartments in the late 1760s. 

The commode is highly important in the history of English furniture-making because it signifies Chippendale’s transition from his Director phase to an early neo-classical style, which he was developing in the second half of the 1760s. This phase is fully illustrated in Chippendale’s commission for Nostell Priory from 1766, and reflects Sir Rowland’s preference for ‘richly styled, but not overtly opulent, furnishings’ (13). In spirit, Sir Rowland Winn’s commode echoes the more masculine furniture supplied to this patron for his library and dressing room at Nostell, which is fully documented; this notably includes the magnificent library table, invoiced in 1767, at Nostell, considered the pinnacle of Chippendale’s mahogany phase of the mid-1760s, a gentleman’s dressing table and a commode clothes press. The success of this commode lies in the quality of the mahogany, which together with the superb but subtle carving and mouldings and ebony inlaid borders in the gout grec manner allows the lustrous woods to govern the ornamentation. 

THE MAHOGANY FORERUNNER 

This commode is the prototype for a select group that includes: a pair of commodes, 1775-80, reputedly presented by Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (1769-1852) to his campaign chaplain, the Rev. Thomas Cooke (1791-1874) (14). This tradition can be traced back to its sale by the collector Leonard Clow at Christie’s, London 10 June 1914; one of these commodes sold Christie’s, London, 6 July 1995, lot 152, the other is in the Lady Lever Art Gallery. The third commode from this group is the Harrington commode, circa 1770, from the collection of the Earls of Harrington, formerly at Elvaston Castle, Derbyshire (15). The association with Sir Rowland Winn’s commode to late Palladian furniture, the carved detailing and the ebony inlay treatment together with its close relationship to the Chippendale design in the Metropolitan Museum coupled with the existence of the bill indicates that this commode was the first of the group. These related commodes share attributes found in Chippendale’s other documented furniture. The distinctive rectilinear form with concave sides recurs in two celebrated commodes at Harewood House, Yorkshire: the Diana and Minerva commode and the 'Three Graces' commode (although these are break-fronted) and also the Panshanger cabinets, formerly in the collection of Lord Melbourne at Melbourne House, Piccadilly, and now at Firle, East Sussex. The carved lion’s head masks of Sir Rowland Winn’s commode are replaced by gilt-metal ram’s head mounts on the Wellington and Harrington commodes; a comparable but not identical mount is found on the library table from Harewood, now at Temple Newsam. Ram’s head masks also feature on the Panshanger cabinets. Both the Wellington commodes and Sir Rowland Winn’s commode bear near-identical feet although in this instance the mahogany is embellished with carved ‘Greek key’ mouldings. Another marquetry commode at Heaton Hall from the Manchester City Art Galleries is of similar form although with a different door and drawer configuration, and has similar gilt-metal ram’s head mounts to the Wellington commodes. 

Interestingly, this commode and the Wellington pair still have the original brass locks stamped ‘E. GASCOIGNE’. Mrs. Elizabeth Gascoigne, a specialist metalsmith working in London in the mid-18th century, produced locks, mechanisms and other hardware for furniture made by several leading cabinet-makers at that time. Her locks are usually found on furniture by Chippendale and other makers of the highest quality. They feature on this commode, as well as on a jewel cabinet supplied to Queen Charlotte in 1762 by William Vile at a cost of £138 10s, and on locks and hinges of several doors supplied to Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire by Mayhew & Ince in 1776-77 and 1787 (16). 

SAMUEL MESSER 

In 1991, this commode was the highlight of Christie's extraordinary sale of the Samuel Messer Collection, brought together at his Regency-style home at Pelsham in Sussex. The Messer collection of furniture, clocks and barometers epitomized the Chippendale period of furniture-making. In one way the sale marked the end of a generation of great English furniture collections formed in the 20th century in Britain, while on the other hand it raised the appreciation for fine English furniture to new heights inspiring a new generation of collectors. Samuel Messer was a part of the very small, elite group of connoisseurs of Georgian furniture - including Percival Griffiths, Geoffrey Blackwell, J. S. Sykes, Fred Skull and James Thursby-Pelham - who formed the nucleus of their collections under the guidance of R. W. Symonds. Messer's superlative collection concentrated on the Chippendale period with particular attention being paid to untouched condition, original patination and fine quality of timber, combined with good proportions, an elegant line and a balanced use of crisply carved ornament, the touchstones of Symonds's influence. 

(1) C. Gilbert, ‘A Supreme Piece of English Furniture’, Christie’s International Magazine, Spring, 1992, p. 16. 
(2) C. Gilbert, The Life & Work of Thomas Chippendale, London, 1978, vol. I, p. 188. 
(3) K.A.C. Bristol, ‘A Tale of Two Sales: Sir Rowland Winn and No. 11 St. James’s Square, London, 1766-1787’, History of Retailing and Consumption, May 2016, p. 6. 
(4) Ann Elizabeth Winn to Sir Rowland Winn, 4th Baronet, 9 December 1763, NP WYW1352/1/4/11/8 quoted in Bristol, ibid., p. 5. 
(5) ‘Soane Museum, St James's Square, number 11, London: executed design for refacing the house, for Sir Rowland Winn, 5th Baronet, 1774’: the surviving drawing at the Soane Museum is one of two alternative designs provided to Sir Rowland. The façade was executed in accordance with the extant drawing in 1774-76, and included Adam's Spalatro order columns. 
(6) Gilbert, op. cit., vol. I, p. 166. 
(7) C. Gilbert, ‘New light on the furnishing of Nostell Priory’, Furniture History, 1990, p. 58. 
(8) Bristol, Ibid., p. 22. Sir Rowland and Lady Winn also purchased second-hand furniture from the Macclesfield sale for no. 11 although their intention may have been to display ‘the finery of a previous owner of higher social status’ in anticipation of Sir Rowland’s elevation to a peerage, an aspiration that remained unfulfilled. 
(9) Gilbert, The Life and Work…’, op. cit., vol. I, p. 188. 
(10) Gilbert, ‘A Supreme…’, op. cit., p. 16. 
(11) A. Bowett, Woods in British Furniture Making 1400-1900, Wetherby, 2012, p. 186. 
(12) The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.40.2 60, 61). 
(13) Gilbert, The Life and Work…’, op. cit., vol. I, p. 169. 
(14) L. Wood, Catalogue of Commodes, Liverpool, 1994, pp. 180-185, no. 20. 
(15) Sotheby’s, London, 7 December 2010, lot 69 (£3,793,250 inc. premium).
(16) Ibid., p. 184.

D/ European Collection (the present version)

Almost certainly the example in Girardon’s own collection, depicted in the central image of the Galerie de Girardon. Like bronze C above, it could be the example mentioned in the inventories of 1713 and 1715.

THE KING AND HIS BATON

In 1690 the Marquis de Louvois, who had persuaded the King to approve the original project, commissioned a second monumental version of the statue from Girardon for his own chateau at Meudon. This was to be the same as the version for the place Vendôme in almost all respects, apart from the fact that the King was to be depicted holding a baton in his right hand, rather than being outstretched. The baton was a military symbol of power and authority, and created a link back to antiquity. Louvois died in 1691, and the bronze was only cast after his death in 1694, when it was acquired by the Marechal de Boufflers. It was destroyed in 1792. The present bronze is a cast of the model for this commission, which must have been finished between the original commission of the Louvois monument in 1690 and when the present cast was exhibited in the galleries of the Louvre in 1699. This was described as ‘the Equestrian Statue of the King, in bronze, 3 pieds 2 pouces high’ and was from Girardon’s personal collection.

The present cast is the fourth known early cast of Louis XIV on horseback on this scale, but the only known reduction of the Louvois model and is almost certainly unique. As none of the four casts has an unbroken provenance, and the existence of the present bronze was unknown until 1993, it has proven difficult to ascertain the history of each cast. However, an example of the equestrian bronze with the right hand holding a baton appears in the 1708 engravings of the Galerie de Girardon, a celebrated series which depicted the sculptor’s collection in a fictional architectural setting. The bronze of the king on horseback took pride of place in the centre of the engravings and was valued at the highest price of any piece in the collection, 3500 livres. A second cast was also in the collection of Girardon, and exhibited at the Academie exhibition of 1704, which is thought to be the version in the Louvre.

A tantalising possibility regarding the history of this bronze concerns a reference to a sale in these Rooms on 16 May 1800 (see under Provenance). Although not specifically referred to as a model by Girardon, the bronze failed to sell at 150 guineas, making it the most highly valued item in the sale. It was owned by 'Van Dyck', who appears to have been a dealer based on his repeated appearances in Christie's auctioneers books around this time, when he was consigning mainly Old Master paintings. The bronze was not one of the items specifically said to have come from the French Royal Collection although Van Dyck was the owner of at least one of these so it is clear that he had access to some of the best collections of France at a very troubled time. If this bronze was the Girardon model, it could not be either of the examples in the Louvre or Hermitage as they had already been acquired by this date, and it is highly unlikely to have been the Windsor example which was purchased in France in 1817.

GALERIE DE GIRARDON

Girardon therefore owned two versions of Louis XIV on horseback in bronze, but only one version was shown in the engravings of his collection. It is argued here, and by Françoise de La Moureyre in the recent monograph on Girardon (Maral, op. cit., pp. 443-4), that the present bronze is the version depicted in the engraving as it is the only known early cast that depicts the King holding a baton in his right hand.

When inventories were taken of Girardon’s collection in 1713 and 1715 only one version of the bronze was noted in the collection. This suggests one version was sold between 1704 and 1713. The inventory of 1715 describes the remaining bronze as ‘the equestrian statue of Louis the great on its supporting base of painted and gilt wood’, appraised at 3,500 livres. Scholars have maintained that this is likely to be the Louvre version (Draper, 2008, p. 91), although due to the absence of any identification of it with the place Vendôme monument, it is also possible that it is the present cast.

The present bronze is a masterpiece of graceful design and refined finish. Included in the monograph on the artist published on the 300th anniversary of his death, Girardon scholar Françoise de la Moureyre comments on the beauty of the modelling and the excellence of the cast which she compares directly to the signed example in the Louvre. She asserts, furthermore, that it is the lost example from Girardon’s collection, depicted in the Galerie de Girardon. (ibid., p. 444).

FRANÇOIS GIRARDON

François Girardon was the most significant sculptor in France in the late seventeenth century. As sculptor to the king, Girardon was instrumental in the development of the gardens of Versailles and in the creation of a unified style that would glorify Louis XIV at home in France and across the courts of Europe. Versed in the arts of antiquity, Girardon challenged the dominance of Italian artists past and present, in order to establish a new era of greatness in France, under the rule of the ‘Sun King’.

Born in Troyes, Girardon (1628-1715) was the son of the founder Nicolas Girardon. He began his technical apprenticeship with Claude Baudesson, the ebeniste and sculptor, and rapidly caught the attention of the Chancellor Seguier, who sent him to study in Rome in 1648. Here Girardon was to find both the abundant remnants of antiquity as well as the still vibrant traditions of the renaissance.

In Rome he met the artists Philippe Thomassin and Pierre Mignard who placed him under the supervision of the sculptor Gianlorenzo Bernini. After three years in Italy, Girardon returned briefly to Troyes before establishing himself in Paris in 1651. He became the pupil of Laurent Magnier and of Francois Anguier, and was admitted to the Academy in July 1657, aged 29, following the presentation of his morceau de reception, a relief of The Virgin. He was made a professor two years later.

A RISING STAR

His artistic talents were quickly recognised and he was honoured with a number of royal ‘commandes’. In 1664 he was named Surintendant des bâtiments du Roi and worked for the Crown for the remainder of his long career. Under the protection of Charles Le Brun, Girardon flourished, and he was entrusted with several grand projects by Louis XIV, including the Galerie d’Apollon at the Louvre. In 1667 Colbert sent him to Toulon as head of the workshops responsible for the decoration of ships, the Royal-Louis and the Dauphin Royal.

Girardon continued to create important works for Versailles including the Fountain of the Pyramid, the large relief of Nymphs for the cascade de l’allee d’eau, and the large group of the Rape of Proserpina. The latter group was a direct artistic challenge to the great Italian sculptors of the past, Giambologna (Rape of a Sabine, Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence) and Gianlorenzo Bernini (Pluto and Proserpina, Villa Borghese, Rome). 

Girardon’s achievements in bronze are particularly remarkable considering that for the first thirty years of his career he worked only in stucco, stone and marble. It was not until he received the commission for a tabernacle in the chapel of the Chateau de Fontainebleau in 1679 that he is recorded working in bronze – and yet what remains demonstrates that he had already mastered the techniques of modelling and chasing. From 1683 bronze was preferred over lead for statuary at Versailles, and with the preferment of Louis’ chief advisor Louvois, Girardon was elevated above all other sculptors, and was put in charge of everything cast at the Arsenal: ‘I want to inform the sculptors who work for the King in Paris of my insistence that they obey M. Girardon in all things, and that anyone who fails to do so will be expelled from the Gobelins’ (Louvois, 1686).

THE ROYAL COMMISSION

The commission for an equestrian monument to Louis XIV was Girardon’s first and only commission for the city of Paris and the ‘most important work of his later period’ (Blunt, rev. 1999, p. 238). The choice of Girardon for the undertaking demonstrates that at this time the sculptor was deemed the first in France, without equal. He was to remain as such until his old age, when he was superseded by Antoine Coysevox.

Girardon illustrated to perfection the classicism in arts envisaged by Louis XIV in creating a stylistic reference that was emulated by all the courts of Europe. Although at the beginning of his career Girardon looked towards the art of antiquity for inspiration, ‘he treated his sources with freedom in his search for ease and harmony of contour and disposition’ (ibid). He rejected the full-bodied Baroque drama of Bernini in favour of a fluid and graceful Classicism. His oeuvre bears witness to his desire to respond to the new influences of his age and it has been said that ‘from 1706 one notes the degree of perfection to which this master had brought the art of sculpture in France, which made him the equal of the most celebrated masters of antiquity’ (Brice, p. 122). He died on Sunday, 1 September 1715, within a few hours of his royal patron, Louis XIV.

GIRARDON: THE CASTING OF LOUIS XIV

The first thing that is notable about the present bronze group is its extreme weight (232 kg), and x-rays taken of the bronze reveal that the core is still intact and is filled with a complex armature of interconnected metal bars and wires. The main part of the bronze appears to have been cast in one pouring, without the usual metal to metal joins. Normally this would suggest a direct cast. However, x-rays taken of both the Royal Collection cast at Windsor and the cast in the Louvre show a closely comparable interior armature. It has been suggested that these bronze reductions may have been cast using a process referred to as the ‘cut-back core process’ (see Bassett and Bewer 2014, pp. 205-214). This relatively rare process involved creating an exact replica of the composition in core material (for the monumental Louis XIV this was a mixture of plaster and ground bricks for the body of the king, and a combination of plaster, horse hair and manure for the body of the horse; see Desmas 2014, p. 236) from the mould of the original model. This core was poured around an interior armature to give it strength and stability and then baked. This replica was then cut back all over its surface and the mould was placed around the reduced core leaving a gap between the two. This was then filled with wax and the mould was removed, thus creating an inter-model with the interior core intact. The inter-model was then encased in refractory material and the whole was heated so that the wax melted out. The re-created gap was then filled with molten bronze in the foundry. Once cooled, the casing was broken off, the surface of the bronze was repaired, fled and chased, and finally patinated.

Interestingly, the right arm of the king does not appear to have either an armature or core in its interior, and a visual examination also confirms that there is a metal to metal join at the top of the arm where it meets the drapery over the king’s shoulder. The left arm also has a metal to metal join just above the elbow. This suggests that the same mould was used for the main body of all four known reductions but that the arms were cast by the more common indirect process. This would facilitate the substitution of the outstretched right arm in the Louvre, Windsor and Hermitage examples for the raised right hand of the present model.

Apart from the obvious difference of the raised right arm, the finishing of all four bronzes differs in numerous other minor respects. The relief decoration on the king’s cuirass differs between some of the different casts, as it does on the pteruges of the armour, the saddle blanket and the plinths (for a more detailed discussion of the differences see Draper, op. cit., pp. 352-353). In terms of the chiselling, all four are of extremely high quality, with small differences of detail.

Perhaps the most notable visual difference is in the colour of the patination which, in the case of the present bronze is a relatively light golden brown colour. This makes the exquisite modelling more clearly legible and highlights the contrast between high points and those cast in shadow.

Lot 110. A bronze group of Hercules overcoming Achelous, Ferdinando Tacca (1619-1686), Florence, circa 1640-50; 22 ¾ x 21 ½ x 15 in. (57.8 x 54.5 x 38.1 cm). Estimate On Request. Price realised GBP 6,758,750. © Christie's Images Ltd. 2018

On a naturalistic base; with French Royal inventory number '-No-302' inscribed to the reverse of the bull; reddish-brown patina; cast after a model by Pietro Tacca (1577-1640); Hercules naked except for his lionskin, bends forward beside the bull, grasping both his horns in his hands and wrestling him to the ground.

Provenance: Given by Louis XIV to his son, the Grand Dauphin, in 1681 (no. 4).
Formally incorporated into the French Royal collection in 1711 on the death of the Grand Dauphin.
At Château de Meudon from 1722 until 1785.
Sent to Paris to be conserved by Jean-Antoine Houdon, 1785.
Garde-Meuble de la Couronne and then Galerie des Bronzes, Paris, 1788.
Salon des conférences des Archives et Bibliothèque du Palais du Conseil des Anciens, 1796.
Sotheby’s, Monte Carlo, 18 June 1989, lot 892.
With Rosenberg and Stiebel, New York (?).
Property from the Estate of Wendell Cherry, Sotheby’s, New York, 20 May 1994, lot 45, where acquired by the present owner.

Detail of French Royal Inventory Number "302" on the reverse of the left rear leg of the bull in the present bronze

Literature: Paris, Musée du Louvre, Les Bronzes de la Couronne, 12 Apr. - 12 Jul. 1999, no. 302, pp. 172-3. 
London, Royal Academy, Bronze, D. Ekserdjian ed., 15 Sept. - 9 Dec. 2012, no. 118, p. 273.
J. Warren (ed.), Renaissance and Baroque Bronzes: in and around the Peter Marino Collection, London, 2013, pp. 22-3. 
J. Warren, The Wallace Collection: Catalogue of Italian Sculpture, vol. II, 2016, pp. 544-9, figs. 116.2-3. 

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE: A. Radcliffe, 'Ferdinando Tacca, the missing link in Florentine baroque bronzes', in Kunst des Barock in der Toskana: Studien zur Kunst unter der letzen Medici, H. Keutner ed., Munich, 1976, pp. 14-23. 
London, Victoria and Albert Museum, Giambologna 1529-1608 - Sculptor to the Medici, 5 Oct.-16 Nov. 1978, C. Avery and A. Radcliffe eds. 
A. Brook and K. Watson, ‘Tacca Family’, in Grove Art Online, 2003 [online resource].
London, San Marino and Minneapolis, Wallace Collection, Huntington Art Collections and Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Beauty and Power: Renaissance and Baroque Bronzes from the Peter Marino Collection, 29 Apr. 2010 - 15 May 2011, J. Warren ed., no. 8. 
P. Wengraf, Renaissance & Baroque Bronzes from the Hill Collection, New York, ed. 2014, cat. no. 15. 

Exhibited: Royal Academy, London, Bronze, 15 Sept.-9 Dec. 2012, no. 118.
Wallace Collection, London, on loan Jan.-Sept. 2013.

The French royal collection version is a cast of superb quality...’ 
Jeremy Warren

The present group by Ferdinando Tacca represents a high point of Florentine seventeenth century bronze casting. Hercules is depicted in a ferocious battle against the god Acheloüs, who has transformed himself into a bull. The result is a superb feat of compositional bravado, technical brilliance and overpowering force. Given by King Louis XIV of France to his son in 1681, the present bronze repeatedly appears in the inventories of the French Royal Collection until it was sold or dispersed during the Revolution. 

The bronze depicts Hercules’ struggle with the river god, Acheloüs, one of Hercules’ rivals for the hand of the beautiful Deianira. Faced with an array of suitors for his daughter, Deianira’s father, King Oeneus of Calydon, announced a contest in which the strongest would win her hand. Acheloüs was by far the strongest in the region, but because of Deianira’s great beauty Hercules travelled far to Calydon for the contest. It was well-known that Hercules was the strongest mortal in the world and the other suitors withdrew, leaving Hercules to wrestle Acheloüs. The river god was able to transform himself at will; he could become a snake, a bull-headed man or a bull, and did so during his wrestling match with Hercules. Hercules defeated Acheloüs, ripping off one of his horns, which became the ubiquitous classical symbol of abundance, the cornucopia. The bronze follows the story of the contest as outlined in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (IX, 94-103, London, 1567). 

A GIFT OF THE MEDICI 

The model of the present group is from a series of five bronzes of Hercules commissioned from Pietro Tacca, Ferdinando’s father, by Grand Duke Cosimo III of Tuscany around 1614, as part of a gift for King James I of England. This project never came to fruition and it does not appear that any of these models were cast during Pietro Tacca’s own lifetime (Warren, 2016, op. cit., no. 116). The impetus for their creation seems to have come from a request by Prince Henry of England for the Medici to send him some more bronzes, after the success of a royal gift in 1612. The Prince died in 1614, but soon after Cosimo ordered a set of the Twelve Labours of Hercules from Tacca and two others, as a gift to Henry’s father King James I. Tacca made five models for the series but they were never cast, and in 1633 he is recorded still seeking payment for the models from the Grand Duke (ibid, p. 536). The five models in the series are of Hercules and the Centaur, Hercules overcoming Acheloüs, Hercules and the Erymanthian Boar, Hercules and the Arcadian Stag and Hercules supporting the Heavens. 

A source for the models may have been a series of prints by Antonio Tempesta published in 1608, which shows similarities with the compositions of Hercules and the Stag, Hercules and the Boar (in the background) and Hercules overcoming Acheloüs. An alternative source for the present group may be an engraving of the same subject by Gian Giacomo Caraglio, published in 1524, after a drawing by Rosso Fiorentino, in which the pose and type of bull are almost identical to the animal in the present bronze. The closest possible source is from a series of prints by Cornelis Cort after Frans Floris I that were published by Hendrick Goltzius in 1563. This engraving is also thought to have inspired Cornelis van Haarlem’s great painting of the same subject (sold at Christie's, New York, 15 April 2008, lot 25). 

Antonio Tempesta, Hercules and Acheloüs, 1608, engraving from the Labours of Hercules, plate 82 © Metropolitan Museum of Art

Gian Giacomo Caraglio, Hercules overcoming Acheloüs, 1524, after Rosso Fiorentino © Metropolitan Museum of Art.

FERDINANDO TACCA

Ferdinando Tacca was one of the leading sculptor’s working under the Medici in Florence in the seventeenth century. Inheriting his father’s studio which he in turn had inherited from Giambologna, Tacca continued their great legacy in creating exquisite bronze casts for the Medici family and noble patrons throughout the courts of Europe. Ferdinando improved on the technical capabilities of Pietro Tacca, Antonio Susini and Giambologna by casting superb bronzes in ever increasing scale. 

Ferdinando Tacca was born in Florence in October 1619. His father, Pietro, had inherited Giambologna’s studio in Borgo Pinti on his death in 1608 and was recognised as the official court sculptor to Cosimo II de Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany. It is likely that Ferdinando assisted his father in his workshop growing up. When Pietro himself died in 1640, Ferdinando immediately took over the running of the large studio and succeeded his father as court sculptor to Ferdinand II, who had succeeded his father. 

FATHER AND SON IN THE WORKSHOP 

Pietro had been trained by Giambologna to work in marble and bronze, but the latter became his favourite material and his marble statues were usually handed over to his assistants. Pietro built on Giambologna’s sophisticated Mannerist style, but was able to achieve a greater technical mastery which in term influenced his own stylistic development. 

Pietro’s last important commission was an equestrian monument to Philip IV, King of Spain. Philip requested from Tacca that he be depicted on a rearing horse; this difficult feat had never before been achieved on a monumental scale. Tacca’s lifelong study of casting helped him to resolve, with advice from Galileo Galilei, the immense challenge. This was ‘one of the greatest achievements in the history of Western sculpture’ (Watson and Brook, loc. cit.). Ferdinando must have been closely involved in the commission, and after Pietro’s death he carried it to its completion, travelling to Madrid to unite and erect the sculpture in the garden of Buen Retiro in 1642. 

Both Pietro and Ferdinando were mindful not to abandon the celebrated style of Giambologna that had proved immensely popular with patrons Europe-wide. And yet the bronzes of both Pietro and Ferdinando are distinct from Giambologna and each other. Their works tended ‘towards naturalism more marked than that displayed in Giambologna’s sculpture’. Both father and son developed a style of their own, which can be seen most tellingly in their small-scale bronze sculptures. In the tradition of Giambologna’s other major assistant, Antonio Susini, Pietro and Ferdinando concentrated huge resources in creating exquisite surface finishes and the result was that they ‘could make bronze resemble skin or hair, hide or cloth, rock or plant’ (ibid).

SEEKING NEW PATRONAGE 

After completing work on the equestrian statue of Philip IV, Ferdinando returned to Florence. From 1642 to 1649 he worked on two monumental bronze statues of Grand Dukes Ferdinand I and Cosimo II, which his father had begun for the Cappella dei Principi in San Lorenzo, Florence. But following this Ferdinando had to seek patronage outside the Medici court, which was by this date in decline. His most important works in the following period were a life-size Crucifix and four infant angels in bronze for the palace chapel of Prince Carlo I Cybo Malaspina of Massa–Carrara (1647–9), an antependium relief of the Stoning of St Stephen (1656), kneeling infant angels in bronze executed for the Bartolommei family (1650-5, Getty Museum), the bronze Fountain of Bacchus (1658–65, Prato, Palazzo Pretorio), and private commissions such as a bronze figure of Apollo (Los Angeles County Art Museum). 

Alongside this Ferdinando also worked on independent bronze groups. The most impressive of these were the five re-worked casts of the Labours of Hercules after models created by Pietro, that include the bronze of Hercules overcoming Acheloüs discussed above. It is not known who commissioned Ferdinando to cast such expensively assembled large-scale bronze sculptures, but it was unlikely to have been done from his own reserves. The theatricality of the models would have appealed to Ferdinando, who was known to have pursued a second vocation as a stage designer, and they inspired in him some of his greatest achievements in bronze. Their richly defined surfaces are an enormous achievement in themselves, and give evidence that his engineering and casting skills were just as important as his artistic vision. 

ESTABLISHING FERDINANDO'S OEUVRE 

In 1976 Anthony Radcliffe published a paper 'Ferdinando Tacca, the missing link in Florentine Baroque bronzes' (Radcliffe, 1976, loc. cit.) that first established Ferdinando’s authorship of a group of high-quality bronze mythological sculptures. Because of the reduced patronage provided by the Medici Grand Dukes in the mid-seventeenth century, there is remarkably little documented work by Ferdinando, considering his status and the length of time he was running the most important bronze workshop in Florence. Radcliffe convincingly linked these previously mis-attributed bronzes to Ferdinando by comparing them stylistically to the relief of the Stoning of St Stephen. Each of these bronzes consists of two-figures, set apart from each other on a thin base, ‘in such a way as to emphasize a single, frontal view—a kind of miniature theatre. He thus provides a link between Giambologna and Giovanni Battista Foggini’ (Watson and Brook, 2003). This series is now known to include ten models – often in variant versions – representing the following pairs: Medoro and Angelica, Apollo and Daphne, Bireno and Olimpia, Hercules and Iole, Mercury and Juno, Pan and Diana, Roger and Angelica, Ceres and Bacchus and Venus and Adonis (Wengraf, loc. cit.). 

Wengraf argues that these two-figures groups were conceived earlier than previously thought, possibly even as early as 1635-40, when Ferdinando was still in the workshop of his father Pietro. Between nine and eleven groups by Ferdinando are noted in the inventory of the commissaire des guerres Jean-Baptiste de Bretagne drawn up after his death in October 1650 (see Warren, 2010, op. cit., p. 94), which would give a terminus ante quem to the conception and casting of the models. 

Radcliffe noted the individual way that Ferdinando modelled his bases, which was quite unlike the bronzes of Giambologna or Antonio Susini. His bases are all modelled in the same ‘quasi-naturalistic way and worked with sinuous convoluted tracks of unusually heavy punching’ (Radcliffe, op. cit., p. 18). This can be seen in his two-figure groups but also in his casts of Pietro’s models of the Hercules series; most evidently in the superb rendition of the bases of Hercules overcoming Acheloüs and Hercules overcoming the Centaur Eurytion, which show an obsessive attention to work every surface, a hallmark of Ferdinando’s work which made him one of the greatest sculptors working in bronze in the seventeenth century. 

COMPARISON WITH THE WALLACE VERSION

The present bronze is one of two known casts; the other cast was probably acquired by the 3rd Marquess of Hertford in 1842 and is in the Wallace Collection, London. In his exhaustive study of the Italian sculpture in the Wallace Collection, Jeremy Warren compares the two bronzes, commenting that the ‘outstanding version numbered 302 in the French royal collection, now in private hands…is of higher quality’ than the version in the Wallace (Warren, 2016, loc. cit.).  

Ferdinando Tacca, Hercules overcoming Acheloüs, circa 1640-50 © Wallace Collection, London

Warren notes that the two bronzes have a few small variations; in the present cast Hercules is positioned slightly further back and his head is lowered, which helps to increase the psychological tension within the composition. The lion skin that Hercules wears as a cloak is pushed further into the air in the present version, which increases the sense of Hercules’ forward movement. Technically the present cast is an advancement on the Wallace cast; the finishing is of a higher quality and the weight is more evenly distributed so that fewer extra sections were needed to be inserted after casting. Warren argues that this evidence suggests that the Wallace example may precede the present bronze, as the latter appears to improve on the design of the Wallace cast. 

TACCA: HIS TECHNICAL EVOLUTION 

The close similarity of the two known casts of Tacca’s Hercules Overcoming the Bull Achelöus suggests that they were also cast by the indirect lost wax process. Jeremy Warren was able to examine the two groups simultaneously and make extensive notes. Both groups have been cast in a number of separate pieces and then joined after casting. Partly because of the gilding, the joints of the Wallace bronze are relatively easy to detect. However, in the case of the present bronze Warren writes, ‘the French royal collection version is a cast of superb quality, in which it is virtually impossible through normal visual examination to determine the seams joining the different parts’ (Warren, 2016, loc. cit., p. 546). Notwithstanding, a few joins are visible, including to Hercules’ right arm below the elbow, to his right thigh and at two points of the lion skin close to Hercules’ back. This latter element of the lion skin flying out dramatically behind the hero as he lunges forward is a particularly virtuoso piece of casting and finishing. The pelt ripples in the air with a seeming life of its own, supported only by two narrow ‘arms’ that are then tied across Hercules’ chest.

Despite the many similarities of the casting process between the two bronzes, one area where they differ is the manner in which each is attached to its separately cast base. In both cases there are holes in the base into which the bronze elements are inserted. However, the method of attaching the bronze elements is quite different. In the case of the Wallace example, most of the holes are covered underneath with a metal plate before a screw is inserted through the plate and screwed into the bottom of the bronze element above. In the case of the French royal bronze, the process was more laborious and costly, but ultimately ensured that the overall group remained more stable. In this latter case, once the bronze element had been inserted into the hole a second pouring of bronze was added from beneath, thus securing the bronze element permanently. Several of these second pourings were too deep for the recessed base and would have prevented the bronze from resting flat on a given surface. One can clearly see the chisel marks where these excess pieces of bronze were removed. 

One further feature worth noting is the distinctive and unusual presence of neatly paired plugs on either side of several of the second pourings. It is unclear what their function might have been but their placement is too regular for them to be casting flaws that have been repaired. It may be that bands of some sort held the elements in place during the process of the second bronze pourings and that once these elements were secure the bands were removed and the holes were filled. It would be interesting to know if this feature has parallels in other bronzes of the period.

One of the glories of the French royal bronze is its patination which, unlike the gilded example in the Wallace Collection has a rich warm brown surface. The alloy of the Wallace bronze was analysed and was shown to have a particularly high copper content (92.2%) even by the standards of Italian foundries, which tend to use more copper than their northern counterparts. Although it hasn’t been formally analysed, the alloy of the present group is clearly also high in copper, as is obvious when one examines the raw bronze on the underside which has a clear pink tinge. This distinctive alloy contributes to the depth of colour achieved. The surface is further enlivened overall by directional wire brushing which is visible under the translucent lacquers and gives greater texture to the surface. 

Lot 124. The Newhailes Sageot Commode. A Louis XIV ormolu-mounted, brass, pewter, tortoiseshell, ebony and polychrome-decorated stained-horn Boulle marquetry commode, by Nicolas Sageot, circa 1710; 33 in. (84 cm.) high; 52 in. (132 cm.) wide; 27¼ in. (69.2 cm.) deep. Estimate GBP 150,000 - GBP 250,000 (USD 198,000 - USD 330,000). Price realised GBP 332,750. © Christie's Images Ltd. 2018

Inlaid in contre-partie, the rectangular top with rounded front angles and moulded edge decorated with foliate scrolls and rinceaux, centred by a seated figure of Victory under an arched canopy, flanked by further figures and Bèrainesque motifs, the angles with masks and floral bouquets, above two short and three long conformingly inlaid, walnut-lined drawers with female mask escutcheons and floral drop-handles, the drawer divides with trellis banding, the sides and angles inlaid with similarily decorated panels, above a shaped apron centred by a mask of Ceres, on shell bracket feet, stamped 'NS', minor losses to marquetry.

Provenance: Possibly Sir David Dalrymple of Hailes, 3rd Bt. Lord Hailes (1726-92), and by descent to his eldest daughter Christian Dalrymple (1765-1838) who died without issue, thence by inheritance to her half-nephew, 
Sir Charles Dalrymple Fergusson of Kilkerran, 5th Bt. (1800-1849), and by descent to his son the Sir Charles Dalrymple [Fergusson] of Newhailes, 1st Bt. MP (1839-1916). 
Sir David Dalrymple of Newhailes, 2nd Bt. (1879-1932).
Sir Mark Dalrymple of Newhailes, 3rd Bt. (1915-1971) and his wife, Lady Antonia Stewart (1924-217), daughter of the Earl of Galloway, and thence by inheritance to the present owner.

Literature: Possibly The Newhailes Inventory, c. 1790, in the Chintz Room as 'An inlaid chest, wax cloth cover and cloth slip'.
Inventory of New Hailles House, 1873, in the Drawing Room as a 'Fine brass & inlaid chest of Drawers Key for Do.'.
A, Dowell, Inventory & Valuation of the Furnishigs, Pictures, Silver Plate . ... of Newhailes made for Insurance Purposes, 1914, in the Drawing Room as a 'Buhl (sic) & ormolu commode of three long and two short drawers, decorated all over flowers & classical figures in colour ormolu drop handles & mounts, plate glass top'.
L. Weaver, ‘Newhailes, Midlothian, the seat of Lt. Com. Sir David Dalrymple, Bt., R.N.’, Country Life, 8 September 1917, p. 230, illustrated in situ.

Note: This wonderful early 18th century commode, an outstanding example of contre-partie marquetry design, is the work of Parisian ébéniste Nicholas Sageot (1666-1731) and typifies the style Bérain, with its elegant arabesques and foliate scrolls. For the past two centuries, it has been in the possession of the Dalrymple and Fergusson families at Newhailes House, near Edinburgh. A jewel of early Palladian architecture, the house and its furnishings are a monument to the superb taste of this highly cultured family. 

THE COMMODE AT NEWHAILES HOUSE, MUSSELBURGH

This commode possibly entered the collection at Newhailes House, Musselburgh, Scotland, during the tenure of Sir David Dalrymple, 3rd Baronet, Lord Hailes (1726-92), who inherited the house in 1751. Lord Hailes, a scholar and eminent figure of the Scottish Enlightenment and a close friend of Dr Johnson, was from a dynasty of lawyers and politicians prominent in the Scottish legal system. He further developed the collection of books in the Library, originally built around 1722, for which Newhailes acquired its outstanding reputation.
This commode is possibly the one recorded in the ‘Chintz Room’ at Newhailes, near Edinburgh, in the 1790 inventory for the mansion (1), when it was described as: 
‘An inlaid chest, wax cloth cover and cloth slip’.

View of Newhailes from the gate © Country Life Picture Library

Despite the sparing description in the inventory, which can be accounted for by the author, who was possibly a housekeeper because of her detailed knowledge of textiles and blankets, the protective covers for this chest suggest it may be the present commode.
In 1869, the commode appears in a watercolour of the library at Newhailes by Walter Severn (1830-1904), a member of the Royal Cambrian Academy. Severn was employed by Sir Charles Dalrymple, 1st Baronet of Newhailes (1839-1916), who inherited the estate in 1849, to paint some of the interiors. However, from this date to 1873, the villa was leased to Henry Coventry, and thereafter to Alexander, Baron Shand of Woodhouse until 1883. It was almost certainly the tenancy of the latter that prompted an inventory to be raised in 1873. 
The commode is listed in the ‘Drawing room’ in the 1873 inventory: ‘Fine brass & inlaid chest of Drawers Key for Do. [ditto]’, and to the left of the entry ‘brass loose pieces off’. This room was, in fact, the old Library, which had been transformed into a drawing room by the addition of a suite of sofas and chairs from a drawing room in the opposite wing. During this ‘drawing-room phase’ the room became the principal reception room where the finest furniture and works of art from the collection were on display including this commode, and the late 17th century Flemish ‘Hopetoun Chest’; it was then described as the most learned drawing room in Europe (2). 

Walter Severn (1830-1904), The Library at Newhailes, 1867 © HES

In the 1914 inventory, it is in the same room and a full description identifies the Sageot commode beyond doubt: ‘Buhl & ormolu commode of three long & two short drawers, decorated all over flowers & classical figures in colours, ormolu drop handles & mounts, plate glass top’. At this date, it is valued at £150 – one of the most expensive pieces of furniture at Newhailes. 
In 1917, the commode was photographed by Country Life in the Library; and again in a privately printed photograph in 1959 (3). 

Photograph of Newhailes Library, 1917 © Country Life Picture Library

NEWHAILES, MUSSELBURGH, NEAR EDINBURGH

The estate, originally known as Whitehill, was acquired in 1686 by James Smith (1645-1731), described by Colen Campbell in his Vitruvius Britannicus (1717) as: ‘the most experienced architect in Scotland’ (4). He designed the original house in the Palladian manner, and Newhailes is significant for being an early exemplar of this style, later fashionable throughout Britain and Ireland. In 1709, the estate was purchased by Sir David Dalrymple, 1st Baronet of Hailes (circa 1665-1721) for the sum of 40,000 merks (£27,000 – approximately £2.5 million in 2004), who renamed the estate ‘New Hailes’. During the long ownership of the Dalrymple family, the house has not been fundamentally altered from Smith’s original building. Although some improvements have been made to the interiors, these are largely intact and represent one of the best-preserved interiors of the early 18th century. When the National Trust of Scotland (NTS) acquired the house in 1997 their remit was to stabilise the condition of the buildings, and at the same time maintain the spirit of the house. 

SAGEOT’S DESIGN

The richly ornamented style of this magnificent commode derives from the work of the celebrated ébéniste du roi André-Charles Boulle (1642-1732), who popularised the virtuoso practice of inlaying ebony-veneered case furniture with brass, tortoiseshell and stained horn at the court of Louis XIV. Although Boulle gave his name to this technique, it was practised by several other Parisian cabinetmakers at the start of the 18th Century, including Aubertin Gaudron (d. 1713), Noël Gérard (1685-1736) and Nicholas Sageot.
Sageot had a thriving workshop on the rue du faubourg Saint-Antoine by 1698 and became a master in 1706. Documentary evidence indicates that he also operated as a marchand mercier. As with the present commode, his pieces are often stamped, a rarity at this date, as it did not become obligatory for cabinetmakers to do so until 1751. A very similar commode in première-partie formerly in the collection of the Dukes of Newcastle, Clumber Park, Nottinghamshire (sold Christie's, London, 16 December 1999, lot 50, £287,500) also bears Sageot’s stamp, which later allowed a commode formerly in the Thyssen collection to be further attributed to this master (sold Christie's, London, 14 December 2000, lot 320, £168,750). 

The Louis XIV commode, by Nicolas Sageot, formerly in the collection of the Earl of Lincoln, Clumber Park © Christie’s Images

The Louis XIV commode, by Nicolas Sageot, formerly in the Thyssen collection © Christie’s Images.

The superb design of the present commode, with its intricate filigree arabesques, abundance of polychrome flowers, and playful mask motifs is inspired by the work of Jean Bérain (1640-1711). Of exceptional quality, the top depicts the figure of Pallas-Athena, seated on a lambrequined plinth beneath a garlanded baldacchino. She is attended by two putti, possibly Eros and Anteros, who proffer a palm of victory and two flaming torches to the goddess. Flanking the central motif are two huntresses, each attended by a putto and a dog. Two further huntresses, each with a hawk and a hound top the architrave above the figure of Athena. 
It is likely that this scene is symbolic of ‘Love’s triumph’, the flames of love being conquered by the wise and chaste goddess Athena. This theme played an important role in Bérain’s œuvre; in 1681 in his official role as Dessinateur de la Chambre et du Cabinet du Roi he created the costumes and set designs for the ballet Le Triomphe de l’Amour, performed by members of the court to celebrate the marriage of the dauphin and Marie-Anne-Christine-Victoire of Bavaria (1660-1690), which had taken place the previous year. Bérain’s interest in theatrical design can be seen in the composition of many of his designs, the present top being no exception; with its wonderfully bold layout and delightfully colourful figures, it is as visually arresting as any theatrical performance. 

Ornamens Inventez par J. Berain Et se vendent Chez Monsieur Thuret Aux Galleries du Louvre Avec Privilege du Roy, Paris, 1711, f. 66

Given the similarity between this design, the top of the Thyssen commode and a third commode sold Sotheby’s, Monaco, 24 June 1984, it is likely that Sageot owned a specific Bérain cartoon or engraving of the subject (4). This was probably lost after Sageot’s mental health began to decline in 1725. However, the folio of engravings after designs by Bérain, published following his death in 1711, contains several variations on the central victorious figure and her attendants, providing us with an idea of the perennially popular material Sageot was using.

(1) The inventories for Newhailes held by the National Trust of Scotland, Edinburgh.
(2) V. Horrocks, Newhailes, Edinburgh, 2004, p. 6.
(3) L. Weaver, ‘Newhailes, Midlothian, the seat of Lt. Com. Sir David Dalrymple, Bt., R.N.’, Country Life, 8 September 1917, p. 230; RCAHMS.
(4) As posited by J.N. Ronfort, André Charels Boulle 1642-1732: A New Style for Europe, Paris, 2009, p. 98.

Lot 106. A South German ormolu, silver and gilt-brass quarter-striking astronomical masterpiece table clock, by Hieronymus Syx, Augsburg, 1705; 31 in. (78.7 cm.) high; 12 ¾ in. (32.4 cm.) wide; 10 3/8 in. (26.4 cm.) deep. Estimate GBP 400,000 - GBP 600,000 (USD 528,000 - USD 792,000). Price realised GBP 512,750. © Christie's Images Ltd. 2018

THE CASE: embellished overall with coloured glass Kunkelstein, the kneeling Atlas finial supporting a globe with engraved band indicating age of the moon, above a four-tiered structure enclosing the bells, each element with repoussé silver foliate ornament flanked by leaf-capped spheres about the stylised dolphin and baluster columns, the rectangular case with further silver foliate mounts and with eagle and dolphin head cast angles, on a conforming stepped spreading plinth with gadrooned border, detachable side panels, formerly on a further base (probably a turntable)
THE MAIN DIAL: the three inner rings for variable Italian and Babylonian hours, each engraved '1-24', a silvered twice 12-hour ring in Roman numerals with outer quarter hour ring divided ‘I-IIII’ and with Arabic five minute markers, the reversible outer calendar ring engraved with six months to each side, showing months, days of month and corresponding Saints days together with dominical letters, the subsidiary dials: upper left showing the Golden Number ‘Cÿclus Aurei Numeri’ numbered '1-19'; upper right for Cycle of Indication ‘Cyclus Idictionum’ numbered '1-15'; lower left for alarm setting; lower right with Zodiacal calendar, engraved with corresponding symbols for the months, for setting the latitude for the variable hours numbered '12-19'
THE ASTROLABE DIAL: the latitude plate with stereographic projections, engraved 'Tropicus Capricorni', 'Circulus Equinoctalis' and 'Tropicus Cancri', the finely engravedrete with pointers for 15 stars ('Crus Aquary', 'Venter Ceti', 'Piostrum Ceti', 'Oculus Jaury', 'Canis Major', 'Canis Minor', 'Lucida Hÿdra', 'Car Leonis', 'Spica Virginis', 'Cauda', 'Sinister Serpentary', 'Corona Septentrionalis', 'Caput Antinoj', 'Caput Serpentarii' and 'Crus Pegasi'), and showing orders of magnitude (1-3), the eliptic with zodiacal divisions and symbols, the double-ended rule indicating against the rete with one end showing the hours of daytime, the other engraved with sun face and indicating the position of the sun through the Zodiac throughout the year, aspect diagram to central disc and phases and age of moon viewed through an aperture, enclosed by a twice 12-hour ring; the subsidiary dials: upper left for ‘12’ or ‘24’ hour striking; upper right for strike / silent ‘Schlägt / Schlägt nit’; lower left showing Dominical Letters; lower right with planetary days of the week ‘Sool’ (Sunday), ‘Luna’ (Monday), ‘Mars’ (Tuesday), ‘Merc’ (Wednesday), ‘Jupiter’ (Thursday), ‘Venus’ (Friday) and ‘Saturn’ (Saturday); the left-hand side of the case with indications for quarter striking ‘1-4’, the right-hand side with 12 or 24-hour striking indications
THE MOVEMENT: the gilt-brass square-section posted frame movement raised above the base on turned pillars, signed to both end plates ‘Hÿeronimus Sÿx / Augustae Vindelicorum’ and with Augsburg ‘pine-cone’ marks, with blued-steel highlights and ornamental engraving, three-chain fusee movement and a standing barrel for the alarm, verge escapement, countwheel strike to bell and quarter strike to further bell, front-swinging pendulum; some later elements and some dials apparently non-functioning.

Provenance: Lempertz, Zurich, 14-17 November 1956, lot 1333a. 
Collection of Mr & Mrs. M. W. L. Boon, until sold;
Kunstveilingen Sotheby Mak Van Waay B. V., Amsterdam, 2 April 1981, lot 264. 
The Al-Tajir Collection, until acquired by the present owner.

Literature: K. Maurice, Die Deutsche Räderuhr, vols. I & II, Munich, 1976, pp. 42-3, pl. 247.
J. Abler, Meister der Uhrmacherkunst, Dusseldorf, 1977, p. 587.
Clocks, June 1981, pp. 26-31.
The Glory of the Goldsmith, Magnificent Gold and Silver from the Al-Tajir Collection, Christie’s, London, 1989, pp. 274-5. 

COMPARATIVE LITERATURE: K. Maurice and O. Mayr (editors), The Clockwork Universe, German Clocks and Automata 1550-1650, Munich, 1980.
L. Winters, A Renaissance Treasury, The Flagg Collection, New York, 1999.
D. Thompson, The British Museum Clocks, London, 2004.

Exhibited: Christies, London, ‘The Glory of the Goldsmith’, 3-22 January 1990, No. 240.

Note: AUGSBURG MASTERPIECE CLOCKS

Hieronymus Syx (or Six) (b. 1680 – d. 1726), a 'small watchmaker', is documented as completing this clock in 1705 as his 'Masterpiece'. (1)

The Ilbert Masterpiece clock

The history of the craft system in Augsburg dates to the fourteenth century when clockmakers were part of a larger guild of general smiths formed in 1368. The clockmakers became autonomous in 1564 allowing them to govern their own trade. 

To become a Master, a clockmaker had to complete an apprenticeship for three years and to work following different masters as a journeyman for a similar period. Only then could he apply to be a Master clockmaker by proving his ability and skill creating a Masterpiece clock.

The Augsburg clockmakers' guild stipulated that for a Masterpiece clock the following functions had to be fulfilled; 
'A clock of the dimensions as hitherto, about a span high, which strikes the hours and the quarters. It shall also have an alarm and shall likewise show the astrolabe, the length of the days, the calendar and the planets and their signs. When the quarter hand is moved, all hands shall move in time with it, and in addition the clock shall strike the hours both to 12 and 24, as one may select.' (2)

The Münster Masterpiece clock.

As with all Masterpiece clocks, this clock would have been made over a period of only six months. When completed in 1705, the 1577 statutes of the guild were still in force. These had remained unchanged in the intervening 128 years which explains the traditional tower format of this clock. 

Augsburg is known for the quality of its clock making and this clock epitomises this high level of craftsmanship together with the collaboration of other specialist workers such as the goldsmiths, coppersmiths and brass-founders. The latter were by 1588 strictly limited to only seven masters with a further stipulation that they only cast for clockmakers. Elements such as the dolphin mounts to the angles of the present clock would have been produced in quantity and are often repeated on known clocks; for example, the masterpiece clock formerly from the Ilbert Collection and now in the British Museum (3) shares its mounts with the ‘Quitzen’ masterpiece clock by Johan Hasse (4) and another Augsburg clock of this period formerly at Münster (5). The present clock is marked with the Augsburg hallmark, the pine cone, to each end plate of the movement.

A contemporary addition to this clock are the Kunkelstein glass sphere finials, this is a type of coloured glass invented by Johann Kunkel (1637-1703) whilst director of the laboratory and glass works of Brandenburg, in imitation of rubies, formed by the reaction of gold salts with tin chloride.

(1) K. Maurice, Die Deutsche Räderuhr, vols. I & II, Munich, 1976, pp. 42-43.
(2) K. Maurice and O. Mayr, The Clockwork Universe, German Clocks and Automata 1550-1650, Munich, 1980, p. 67.
(3) Museum reference: Reg. CAI – 2129.
(4) Christie’s, London, 5 December 1995, lot 83.
(5) Maurice, Op.Cit., pl. 248.

Indeed, while its potential journey from Jan Brant’s home is unknown, a clue remains in the portrait’s trail of influence in an inferior copy at Muse´e d'Art Religieux et d'Art Mosan in Lie'ge (see ‘Vols signalés àl'ICOM’, Nouvelles de l’ICOM, XL, no. 3/4, 1987, p. 31, no. 6, fig. 30), which was seemingly executed sometime after the present picture was overpainted, and evidently inspired by the intimate candour of the original. Though this picture was never intended for public display, Clara Serena’s likeness now lives on as the private memory of the most public artist of the Flemish Baroque. 

Brogi dates the portrait of Opizzoni to circa 1597-1600, to Ludovico’s maturity. It was made at a moment of his career when he was at the height of his powers and his position as the leading artist in Bologna was unrivalled. His cousins, Annibale and Agostino, had left for Rome in the mid-1590s, leaving Ludovico to continue the work of the renowned Accademia degli Incamminati, the artistic academy founded in Bologna by the Carracci in 1582. The impact of the Accademia, which focused on the study of classical antiquity and the Renaissance, was revolutionary, and the decisive influence of the Carracci on the course taken by painting in Bologna, and beyond, has long been recognised. Ludovico himself, however, was arguably the most original and creative of the family. Keith Christiansen, in fact, described him as an artist of ‘incomparable range and imagination’ (‘A Late Masterpiece by Ludovico Carracci: The Tanari ‘Denial of St Peter’’, The Burlington Magazine, CXLV, January 2003, p. 22); and his singular talent is encapsulated in this masterful portrait. 

Note: The present lot is an addition to the small corpus of the Salernese artist Vincenzo de Rogata. Only three pictures by the master have hitherto come to light: the two triptychs depicting The Madonna and Child flanked by Saints John the Baptist, Francis of Assisi, Bernardino da Siena and Sebastian, originally in the Duomo di Salerno (Salerno, Museo Diocensano San Matteo); The Madonna and Child with Saints Matthew and Mark, dated 1498, originally in the Badia di San Marco a Salerno (Puglia, Chiesa Parrocchiale di Scorrano); and a debated Christ in Pietà (Naples, Museo di Capodimonte). This Madonna enthroned was the central panel of a triptych, once flanked by Saints Gregory and Jerome, previously in the collection of Riccardo Gualino (1879-1964) in Turin, where it was given to an anonymous Venetian-Marchigian painter. It was Giovanni Romano who first recognised the picture as possibly an early work by Vincenzo de Rogata (Previtali, loc. cit.). There is debate as to whether de Rogata travelled north through Italy, as suggested by his refined style, or remained south. The region of Campania itself witnessed diverse influences in the later fifteenth century. The well-travelled Veronese artist Cristoforo Scacco was recorded in Naples in 1499 and may have brought south his knowledge of the works of Antoniazzo Romano and Melozzo da Forlì, with whom he had direct contact in Lazio; their influence can be seen in this panel.

Following the disassembly of the triptych, the attribution was forgotten, and was given instead to Antoniazzo Romano and his school. We are grateful to Professor Filippo Todini for recognising the present work as a painting by Vincenzo De Rogata. We are equally grateful to Professor Pierluigi Leone de Castris for independently confirming the attribution on the basis of photographs and for his assistance in cataloguing this lot. Both note close similarities to the Salerno triptych, suggesting a date of around 1490.

A note on the provenance: Riccardo Gualino (1879 –1964) was a successful Italian financier and industrialist who became Chairman of Fiat. He used his vast wealth to amass an impressive collection of art, both in size and quality, and built a princely residence in the Lombard Gothic Style in Cereseto, near Turin. He was the first Italian to buy works by Édouard Manet, and was one of the earliest collectors of works by Amedeo Modigiliani, whose nudes he ‘hung serenely amidst his Titians and Botticellis’ (G. Chessa, ‘Per Amedeo Modigliani’, L’arte, XXXIII, January 1930, p. 30). Kenneth Clark was introduced to Gualino by Bernard Berenson and his wife, and after visiting the collection in 1927, described in a letter to Mrs. Berenson: ‘The Pollaiuolo & Filippino are both pictures which no photo can convey; & of course many of Gualino’s things are enchanting, especially some of the small things - the Veronese, the Foppa & the Rubens landscape. What of his Piero della Francesca? We were not prepared for it & found it beautiful...’ (see R. Cumming (ed.), My dear BB. The Letters of Bernard Berenson and Kenneth Clark, New Haven, 1925-1959, pp. 27-8.) Some of Gualino’s collection, such as Veronese’s Venus and Mars with Cupid and a Horse and Rubens’s Landscape with a pushcart, are now on display in a room dedicated to the collection in the Galleria Sabauda, Turin.