Abstract The nucleus of the National Gallery’s collection was formed by a group of thirty-eight paintings, mostly Continental Old Masters, amassed by John Julius Angerstein (1735–1823). Following Angerstein’s death, Lord Liverpool’s government purchased these pictures and the lease on Angerstein’s London town house on Pall Mall, which became the first home of the National Gallery in 1824. What has been overlooked is the ‘other’ Angerstein collection, which was housed in his suburban villa, Woodlands, at Blackheath. This second collection is examined here, in terms of its location, contents, display and access, and its inter-relationship with the primary collection. It thereby suggests what ‘the’ Angerstein collection – as opposed to ‘an’ Angerstein collection – would have looked like in its entirety. Consideration is given to the typicality or otherwise of Angerstein’s collection at Woodlands, especially in relation to its holdings of British art. For Anthony and Julia Twist and Shirley Fry and in memory of Cyril Fry As is well known, the National Gallery, London, first opened its doors in May 1824, after Lord Liverpool’s government had bought thirty-eight pictures from the collection amassed by the financier John Julius Angerstein, together with a lease on Angerstein’s London town house, No. 100 Pall Mall, to accommodate the pictures for public inspection.1 The majority of the acquisitions were by Continental Old Masters, including Raphael, Claude, Rubens and Rembrandt, while the British School was represented by William Hogarth’s self-portrait and his Marriage à la Mode series, Joshua Reynolds’s portrait of Lord Heathfield, and David Wilkie’s large genre scene of The Village Holiday.2 Pride of place continued to be given to the Continental Old Masters, which were shown in the principal galleries, as recorded in Frederick Mackenzie’s watercolour (Fig. 1). What is less well known is that four paintings by British-born/based painters from the Pall Mall house were not purchased: another Reynolds’s portrait, showing Angerstein’s first wife and their first child Juliana, as well as three large narrative paintings after Milton’s Paradise Lost by Henry Fuseli were sent back to Angerstein’s heirs.3 They re-joined other Angerstein pictures at Woodlands, a suburban villa at Blackheath, south-east London, a home occupied by Angerstein from 1776 and which remained in the possession of his descendants until 1870.4 It was at Woodlands that the majority of Angerstein’s works by British painters and sculptors were kept, together with a number of Old Master paintings, some prints and works by family members. Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Frederick Mackenzie, The National Gallery when at Mr J. J. Angerstein’s House, Pall Mall, exhibited 1834. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 40–1887. Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide Frederick Mackenzie, The National Gallery when at Mr J. J. Angerstein’s House, Pall Mall, exhibited 1834. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 40–1887. The comparative obscurity of the art collection at Woodlands is due to the fact that its contents were scattered via a series of auctions in the late nineteenth century and also because primary documentation and secondary comment about it are scarce. Research was initiated in 1966 in an article by Cyril Fry5 and extended in 1974 in a catalogue he wrote, prepared with the assistance of John Bunston, to accompany an exhibition at Woodlands – which, by that time, was a local history centre. In 1968 Kenneth Garlick published an article on Sir Thomas Lawrence’s portraits of the Angerstein circle, in 1983 a book on the history of Blackheath appeared by Neil Rhind, while a comprehensive biography of Angerstein by Anthony Twist was published in 2006. It is the purpose of the current contribution to examine in detail this neglected aspect of Angerstein’s life. Some general observations about the situation and character of Woodlands and the uses to which it was put will be offered, before turning to discuss the nature of the art collection housed there. Among other things, reasons will be put forward for Angerstein’s comparatively strong interest in British art, and consideration will be given to the typicality or otherwise of Angerstein’s collection at Woodlands. Angerstein’s art collecting in the wider context of his investments and interests Angerstein did not inherit an art collection or go on a Grand Tour. Rather, he started to purchase pictures in earnest in the 1790s,6 when he was in his mid-fifties, and continued to do so until his retirement some twenty years later, in 1811. That he managed to build up a widely-respected collection from scratch was largely the result of his ample financial resources.7 Born in St Petersburg in 1735, he had been brought as a teenager to London in 1749, probably by his natural father, a British merchant named Andrew Thomson. After employment in Thomson’s import-export business trading with St Petersburg, Angerstein became involved with marine insurance, and later with Lloyd’s, which during his day changed from a business transacted from a coffee house to a reputable financial institution, in large measure due to his own efforts. War with America brought increased business opportunities, and as a natural extension of marine insurance, Angerstein became a shipbroker, helping to meet the demand for ships to carry men and materials for warfare on the other side of the Atlantic. During the subsequent Napoleonic wars the British government needed to borrow and did so at least once a year through the stock market. Angerstein became one of a small group which negotiated these loans. It was another risky business but as a result of successful transactions he became sufficiently wealthy to purchase pictures. Angerstein’s wealth was not, however, invested solely in art. More or less simultaneously with his picture buying he started to buy land. In 1793 he invested in some 200,000 acres in a remote part of New York State, USA, and then, from 1799, he invested in English soil, where he was far more successful, eventually owning, among other holdings, more than 11,000 acres in Lincolnshire. In addition to his London town house, and Woodlands, Angerstein purchased over time two abutting estates, Weeting Hall in Norfolk and Brandon Hall in Suffolk - although he never lived in either. He also invested in several ships, including the George III in the 1780s, which at 999 tons was larger than most East Indiamen of the period.8 Angerstein’s wealth was also used to help support countless charitable endeavours. For instance, each naval victory in the early years of the Napoleonic Wars was followed by an appeal based at Lloyd’s for the widows and orphans of seamen who had lost their lives, with Angerstein being involved on every occasion.9 Angerstein’s art collecting interests may have been encouraged by friends and relatives, including his lifelong friend, the art patron William Lock (who was the son-in-law of the collector Sir Luke Schaub). His first wife, Anna Muilman (d.1783), had relatives who amassed important art collections: the Rijksmuseum today contains some ninety Muilman-collected or related pictures including a pair of portraits of ancestors painted by Ferdinand Bol. Angerstein’s second spouse (whom he married in 1785) was Eliza Payne (1749–1800), the widow of Thomas Lucas, a director of Bart’s Hospital. She had aristocratic connections, notably one aunt who married the Earl of Northampton and another who wed the brother of the Duke of Somerset. She also brought with her important artistic associations, for she was connected by marriage to Lord Northwick who built up a wide-ranging collection at Thirlestaine House, Cheltenham. Angerstein’s biographer, Anthony Twist, suggests that marriage to a woman some fifteen years his junior and his social superior may have made Angerstein more self-confident.10 He certainly gave up living in the City, moved his business to the Royal Exchange, leased a house in Pall Mall in 1787, and started to invest in art. He also turned his mind to his suburban villa. Woodlands, Angerstein’s suburban villa at Blackheath Having a villa was a fashionable trend, reflecting the later eighteenth-century’s revived interest in seclusion and privacy.11 Between 1770 and 1840 the greatest area of new growth around London was south of the River Thames, due to the opening of Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges and the attendant major road networks and public carriage system for commuters, from which Angerstein would have benefitted on his travels to and from his lock-up office at the Royal Exchange.12 The Blackheath area became a fashionable zone,13 and other art collectors set up home there from this time, including John Sheepshanks who would do so in the 1830s. From the 1770s the detached ‘villa’ became the suburban form of architecture par excellence.14 The work of architects like Isaac Ware, Robert Taylor and William Chambers has been credited with transforming rather austere layouts of earlier Palladian villas such as Chiswick House in Chiswick and Marble Hill in Twickenham (both completed 1729) into comfortable modern suburban homes, praised as offering maximum comfort and enjoyment combined with a minimum of expense. The newly-rich mercantile class was particularly prominent in the patronage of such buildings, notable early examples being Clifton Hill House, Ware’s first work in the style, built for a Bristol merchant in 1746–50, while Taylor built three important villas in the 1750s, all in the suburbs of London and all for wealthy City merchants including Danson Hill, Kent, in 1756. Within Angerstein’s family, several members owned houses of just this type. For example, Andrew Thomson had a house at Roehampton; and Thomson’s son-in-law Joshua Vanneck built a large house again in Roehampton, while Angerstein’s step-daughter and her husband had one at Lee (a very short distance from Woodlands). The father of Angerstein’s first wife Anna had a mansion at Dagenham, and her uncle a property further away at Castle Hedingham. Nor should it be forgotten that Angerstein was negotiating on William Lock’s behalf over Norbury, the latter’s villa in Surrey (Lock’s town house was in Portman Square), at the same time that he was leasing the Blackheath land for himself. Usually acting as a second home, a villa was not necessarily seen as meriting equal attention to a family’s main home. This seems to have been true in Angerstein’s case, as Woodlands acted as an occasional retreat during his working life in the City of London and he lived there only permanently after his retirement in 1811.15 Angerstein employed a local architect, George Gibson the younger, to build Woodlands in 1774, once he had acquired pasture leading down to the river in Blackheath.16 Its situation was considered a beauty spot with the earliest description of the villa noting that ‘[t]he situation is delightfully picturesque, and commands a delightful but distant view of the Thames’.17 Described by Pevsner as ‘once an excellent villa’,18 Angerstein’s suburban residence was never showy or overly ornate. A first engraving of it was made in 1786, from which a second was published in The Copper Plate Magazine of 1795 (Fig. 2).19 These prints depict a modest square villa with an entrance on the east side, consisting of an open portico flanked by niches containing copies after the antique - the Young Apollo and Dancing Faun. Over the niches were two relief roundels,20 with a semi-circular window in the centre that provided the only light on this side of the house apart from some attic windows. The south front had a secondary entrance with two ground-floor windows either side plus five windows on the first floor and a single attic window above. Fig. 2. View largeDownload slide ‘Woodland House, Kent’, engraving by James Walker, after a drawing by Richard Corbould of 1786, reproduced in The Copper Plate Magazine (1795). © The National Gallery, London; object from the collection of Anthony Twist. Fig. 2. View largeDownload slide ‘Woodland House, Kent’, engraving by James Walker, after a drawing by Richard Corbould of 1786, reproduced in The Copper Plate Magazine (1795). © The National Gallery, London; object from the collection of Anthony Twist. An expanded Woodlands is recorded in an aquatint by J. Hassell of 1804, published in Views of Noblemen and Gentlemen’s Seats . . . in the Counties adjoining London (Fig. 3). In 1802, Angerstein had purchased 10 acres of the heath and went on to enclose a further 26½ acres; ultimately the grounds extended to about 40 acres, in addition to which he purchased 131 acres of freehold farmland nearby.21 Angerstein added a Portland stone façade over the original stucco of the east side and extended the house, adding a large west wing and smaller east wing, stable-block and riding-school.22 It may have been at this point that the north front had three bow windows added, which destroyed the linear simplicity of the original design.23 A final set of alterations took place in 1818 to ensure Angerstein’s comfort in old age, which involved his bedroom being moved to the ground floor, the porch and entrance hall being altered ‘so as to defy all cold winds’, and a system of hot air flues being installed to maintain a temperature of 65 degrees – a novelty commented on but not followed by the majority of Angerstein’s acquaintances, including the future George IV, who stated his preference for an English coal fire.24 That convenience was once again put before aesthetics was something that Lawrence tactfully acknowledged when he wrote to Angerstein at this time: ‘The house, though neat, was always less in appearance than its interior convenience proved it to be, and this little deviation from mere outward symmetry will at once speak its purpose’.25 Fig. 3. View largeDownload slide ‘Woodlands’, aquatint by J. Hassell, 1804, published in Views of Noblemen and Gentlemen’s Seats. © The National Gallery, London; object from the collection of Anthony Twist. Fig. 3. View largeDownload slide ‘Woodlands’, aquatint by J. Hassell, 1804, published in Views of Noblemen and Gentlemen’s Seats. © The National Gallery, London; object from the collection of Anthony Twist. Of all the additions to Woodlands, the one most consistently commented on was the impressive conservatory (300 feet long and 50 feet wide), standing to the north-west of the house, which included a flagged walk, benches and stoves.26 In 1804, the author of Public Characters noted: ‘the conservatory in particular, has a claim upon our admiration, as well from the magnificent yet simple construction of the building, as from the delicacy, richness, and variety of the plants which adorn the interior’.27 Initially, Angerstein specialized in growing Cape heaths, which became popular as a result of botanical exploration in South Africa. Ultimately, the conservatory ‘consisted of the choicest and newest plants from China, New Holland, the Cape of Good Hope’.28 Such botanical rarities were nurtured by the esteemed gardener David Stewart, who was praised for his ‘good taste’ and knowledge of ‘much real science’; and subsequently under Stewart’s mentee, Robert Sweet. More frequently than descriptions of the works of art, we find notices about the grounds in biographical accounts (e.g., Public Characters of 1803–4), poems (including one of 1804 by Thomas Noble),29 private diaries, such as that kept by the Revd Francis Edward Witts, who visited Woodlands in 1805,30 and reports of society gatherings which appear to have taken place in the first decade of the nineteenth century.31 In addition there was a 4-acre kitchen garden with ten ranges of hot houses, a dairy, grotto (sometimes referred to as the ‘hermitage’) and farm–yard with a fountain. The grounds continued to be written about in horticultural publications,32 with one writer asserting at the time of Angerstein’s death that Woodlands contained ‘one of the most extensive collections of curious plants and heaths in the kingdom’, 33 while Sweet noted that it had become ‘the most celebrated garden in the country for forcing fruits of all descriptions’.34 The conservatory played a large part in entertainments hosted by Angerstein and his family at Woodlands. Guests often strolled there and it also acted as part of the attractions for the occasional grand breakfast party that Angerstein and his family hosted.35 During a ‘public breakfast’ for 200 guests on 2 July 1803, for instance, ‘the conservatory filled with all kinds of orange-trees, flowers and shrubs’ was the venue where ‘ices were served. The coolness of the place, and the refreshing odour of the plants, made it a most enchanting retreat’.36 A fortnight later, on 16 July 1803, for a more select group of seventy, including the Prince of Wales, Mrs Fitzherbert, and the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, Angerstein provided ‘a sumptuous dinner . . . in the grand Saloon’, and afterwards ‘a magnificent dessert was served up, consisting of pines, peaches, nectarines, grapes, apples, and pears, all of uncommon size, the produce of Mr. Angerstein’s hot house and orchard’.37 On that occasion, the guests, taking advantage of Woodland’s pleasure gardens and parkland, ‘promenaded on the beautiful lawn, and viewed the hermitage, the dairy, and many other places built after the antique’. Perhaps the grandest affair of all took place in July 1804, on which occasion a substantial breakfast was ‘laid up for 240’ guests.38 Musical entertainments accompanied all the parties at Woodlands mentioned above, the reports commemorating the presence of ‘Milanese minstrels’ and a ‘military band’. And at a ‘Grand Fete’ hosted in July 1807 for the Princess of Wales, after the meal and a visit to the ‘splendid plantations, botanic and flower garden, the graperies, &c. &c.’,39 the evening was rounded off with some dancing and reeling, followed by music-making in the drawing room, which included the Princess of Wales singing in a duet. Interestingly, a musical score exists entitled The Woodlands: A Favourite Rondo, published by Longman & Bates, about 1827 (Fig. 4). It is ‘Respectfully dedicated to J. J. Angerstein, Esq.’ by Charles Martin, who described himself as a ‘Professor of the Harp & Piano Forte’ who could provide ‘Music . . . for Balls and Quadrille Parties’. Perhaps Angerstein commissioned this piece for a ball at Woodlands and Martin later published it. Fig. 4. View largeDownload slide Musical score, The Woodlands: A Favourite Rondo . . . Respectfully Dedicated to J. J. Angerstein, Esq. by Charles Martin, published by Longman & Bates, c.1827. © The National Gallery, London; object from the collection of Anthony Twist. Fig. 4. View largeDownload slide Musical score, The Woodlands: A Favourite Rondo . . . Respectfully Dedicated to J. J. Angerstein, Esq. by Charles Martin, published by Longman & Bates, c.1827. © The National Gallery, London; object from the collection of Anthony Twist. Among the most prestigious visitors to Woodlands, as noted above, were the Prince Regent (later George IV) and, on separate occasions, the estranged Princess Caroline (whose one-time home, Montague House, Blackheath, was about a mile from Woodlands), while it is said the writer Samuel Johnson, the actor David Garrick, and the reformer Jonas Hanway also visited.40 Among the most regular guests were three Royal Academicians, Thomas Lawrence, Benjamin West, and Joseph Farington; the latter recorded seating plans and menus in his celebrated journal.41 Henry Fuseli and Samuel Lysons also joined in occasionally. Angerstein entertained such friends with his family around him, for younger members of the Angerstein clan are mentioned by Farington and in the newspaper reports (neither wife’s name is included in any extant report as Anna died in 1783 and Eliza in 1800).42 From written accounts, we know that Angerstein used Woodlands to accommodate overnight guests,43 while on at least one occasion he used it to host meetings of organizations with which he was associated.44 There are no contemporary descriptions of the interiors of Woodlands but some internal architectural ornamentation survives, as well as photographs of the interiors from the later nineteenth century. Such visual evidence demonstrates that the hall, principal rooms and staircase landing had decorative moulded ceilings incorporating corn swags, acanthus leaves, classical urns and beading in the style of Robert Adam, as well as classically decorated columns and piers,45 and that there were ‘imposing doors of solid mahogany with finely carved lintels’.46 We know something of parts of the contents of Woodlands from an informative ‘List of Books’ and a ‘List of Plate’ – the latter of which includes a generous amount of silver noted as being for use in the dining-room, sitting-room, study and bedrooms – both being included within an heirloom document discussed further below. Still in the possession of his descendants is Angerstein’s magnificent 119-piece Coalport dinner service, made about 1809–10 and decorated with silhouettes of his grandchildren (Fig. 5).47 Fig. 5. View largeDownload slide Coalport plate from the Angerstein dinner service, 1808. The silhouettes are thought to represent Amelia Angerstein, daughter-in-law of John Julius, and one or more of her children, perhaps Henry Frederick (b. 1805) and Elizabeth Julia (b. 1804). © The National Gallery, London; object from the collection of Anthony Twist. Fig. 5. View largeDownload slide Coalport plate from the Angerstein dinner service, 1808. The silhouettes are thought to represent Amelia Angerstein, daughter-in-law of John Julius, and one or more of her children, perhaps Henry Frederick (b. 1805) and Elizabeth Julia (b. 1804). © The National Gallery, London; object from the collection of Anthony Twist. The art collection at Woodlands: Continental Old Masters and modern British art In relation to the fine arts at Woodlands, there are a few important primary sources which, together with published accounts, can be used when considering the principal types of picture kept there and how they related to the collection at Angerstein’s London town house. The two prime sources are: a ‘List of Articles held by William Angerstein, Esq. as heirlooms under the will of John Julius Angerstein who died in 1823’ (hereafter referred to as Heirlooms List 1, and which contains the lists of books and silver mentioned above) and ‘Pictures at Weeting Hall which passed as heirlooms under the will of Jn. Angerstein, Esq. to General Angerstein and now belonging to William Angerstein, Esq.’ (hereafter referred to as Heirlooms List 2).48 While both lists of heirlooms are referred to in this article, it must be acknowledged that List 2 may include pictures that John himself bought as well as those he inherited from Angerstein. There are also half a dozen auction catalogues that may be associated with Angerstein’s heirs, but these need to be treated with especial caution for it is currently unclear which items in them belonged to John Julius Angerstein and which were acquired by his heirs. The first sale, which took place at Christie’s on 20 June 1874, may prove to be most directly linked to Angerstein as the items in it came from Woodlands;49 other sales of pictures from Stratton Street, Piccadilly, and Weeting Hall followed in 1875, 1895, 1896 and 1897, but these have not been drawn upon for the current discussion.50 Works of art from Angerstein’s collection (in addition to the pictures purchased in 1823 by Lord Liverpool’s government) were twice offered by descendants to the National Gallery, but nothing was acquired for Trafalgar Square: in January 1898, Julius H.W. Angerstein offered a number of Old Masters as well as some British works by Lawrence, Glover, and Havell; and in 1965, Miss May Rowley, a direct descendant of Angerstein, left in her will a number of family portraits, on which occasion a crayon portrait of the Angerstein family’s Russian nurse by Lawrence was accepted for the Tate Gallery.51 From an examination of both lists of heirlooms, it is clear that the works of art at Woodlands were eclectic. There were not only paintings, but also drawings, prints and sculpture; and the paintings collection comprised in addition to works by contemporary British artists a number of Old Masters. One of them, noted in Heirlooms List 1 as ‘Titian, The Four Ages’, is in fact Valentin de Boulogne’s Four Ages of Man, a picture presented to the National Gallery in 1938 (Fig. 6). Angerstein had bought it for £80 with other paintings like Sebastiano del Piombo’s The Raising of Lazarus at the celebrated Orléans collection sale in 1798 but it was not included in William Buchanan’s list of 1802 of pictures displayed at Pall Mall and neither was the currently-untraced portrait of Charles V on horseback, described as by Titian and costing £150, but which may have been a version or copy of the picture in the Prado.52 Other Old Masters noted in Heirlooms List 1 are: a Claude Lorrain Seaport, a portrait by Caspar Netscher of Baron Muilman, a member of Angerstein’s first wife’s Dutch family,53 a Rubens Ascension of the Virgin, a Carlo Dolci Head of a Magdalen, a Dirck van Bergen Landscape and Animals at a Fountain, and an Old Cottage and Peasant by ‘J. Ruysdael’, while in Heirlooms List 2 we find listed another Netscher portrait, this time described as Gentleman seated Baron Muilman as well as Two Circular Landscapes and Figures by ‘G. Poussin’ (i.e. Gaspar Dughet). The only print after an Old Master is of a Madonna and Child after Raphael listed in Heirlooms List 2. If we include items from the 1874 sale, we find three different types of Old Masters predominating: sixteenth-century Venetian paintings listed as by Titian, Tintoretto and Veronese;54 Italian Baroque (largely religious) subjects by members of the Bassano family, the Carracci, Domenichino, Guido Reni and Schedoni;55 and Dutch seventeenth-century landscapes by Cuyp and De Koning and seascapes by Backhuyzen, De Vlieger, Van Goyen and the Van de Veldes.56 More unusual in terms of what was then fashionable are works by Pinturicchio, Holbein and Chardin.57 There are also a few drawings, notably by Rubens and Van Dyck.58 Presumably the Old Master paintings discussed above were kept at Blackheath because they were considered less important than their counterparts at Pall Mall – lack of space in central London necessitated choices of this kind. Fig. 6. View largeDownload slide Valentin de Boulogne, The Four Ages of Man, c.1629. © The National Gallery, London, ng4919. Fig. 6. View largeDownload slide Valentin de Boulogne, The Four Ages of Man, c.1629. © The National Gallery, London, ng4919. Woodlands contained much British art, the majority of which was family portraits by contemporary artists. This followed the convention whereby owners displayed their finest Old Masters in London, with ancestor portraits on the walls in country houses, a tradition developed partly for reasons of space and partly because the country seat represented the family’s sense of self in a way rarely achieved by a town residence. At Woodlands there were several family portraits by Sir Joshua Reynolds, including the earliest known likeness of Angerstein, dating to 1765, which shows the thirty-year-old bachelor in fashionable Vandyck costume, for which Angerstein paid the considerable sum of 50 guineas.59 In 1824, Reynolds’s portrait of Angerstein’s first wife, Anna Muilman, and their first child Juliana of 1773, was returned to Blackheath when, as noted, the government chose not to purchase it (Fig. 7).60 Fig. 7. View largeDownload slide Engraving after Joshua Reynolds, Portraits of Mrs. Angerstein and Child, reproduced in John Young, A Catalogue of the Celebrated Collection of Pictures of the late John Julius Angerstein, Esq. (London, 1823), no. 28. © The National Gallery Library, London, 108837. Fig. 7. View largeDownload slide Engraving after Joshua Reynolds, Portraits of Mrs. Angerstein and Child, reproduced in John Young, A Catalogue of the Celebrated Collection of Pictures of the late John Julius Angerstein, Esq. (London, 1823), no. 28. © The National Gallery Library, London, 108837. Angerstein commissioned most portraits from Sir Thomas Lawrence, his close friend. Lawrence hailed from origins as obscure as those of Angerstein and likewise became as successful in his own profession, even though he was no good with money. Indeed, it was the financier’s generosity in terms of financial loans that saved the painter from bankruptcy more than once. The earliest portrait of Angerstein by Lawrence shows the sitter about the age of fifty-five. It was painted impromptu, on a canvas previously used for an unfinished portrait, and at the same time that Lawrence was busy with a likeness of Lock that Angerstein had commissioned.61 Lawrence’s last portrait of Angerstein, which the painter considered among his best works (Fig. 8), shows him at the age of eighty-one. Indeed, when the Prince Regent sent him abroad in 1818 to portray Allied dignitaries, Lawrence took some portraits with him as proof of his skill, including this one of Angerstein.62 As Kenneth Garlick has pointed out, Lawrence painted most members of the Angerstein/Lock/Boucherett circle,63 including a portrait of Angerstein’s children, Juliana and John painted in 1782–3;64 a full-length portrait of Angerstein and his second wife Eliza which was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1792;65 Angerstein’s son, John, as an adult;66 and his daughter-in-law Amelia (the daughter of his great friend William Lock), to which Lawrence later added the figure of Amelia’s first son.67 Later, in 1807–8, Lawrence painted the expanded family of John and Amelia Angerstein, which now comprised four offspring (Fig. 9). This portrait was painted at Woodlands where Farington noted that he and other guests were shown it as a work in progress.68 Apart from accepting portrait commissions, Lawrence also made ‘sketches and drawings . . . for pleasure and friendship’,69 some of which were kept in albums at Woodlands, others framed and displayed there. For instance, Lawrence made a pastel of ‘Mrs Boucherette [sic] with 2 of her children and Miss Angerstein’, which was hung at Woodlands and to which Angerstein referred in a letter to the artist on the eve of the latter’s departure to Rome in January 1819: ‘Your drawing of Mrs. Boucherette [sic], her two eldest children & Julia looks as well as possible and [is] always greatly admired’.70 Other family portraits by Hoppner and Grant also became heirlooms.71 Fig. 8. View largeDownload slide Thomas Lawrence, John Julius Angerstein, aged over 80, 1824. This is a later copy of portrait mentioned in the text, ordered by George IV shortly after the sister’s death. © The National Gallery, London, ng129. Fig. 8. View largeDownload slide Thomas Lawrence, John Julius Angerstein, aged over 80, 1824. This is a later copy of portrait mentioned in the text, ordered by George IV shortly after the sister’s death. © The National Gallery, London, ng129. Fig. 9. View largeDownload slide Thomas Lawrence, The Angerstein Children, 1807. © Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Photo: Jörg P. Anders. Fig. 9. View largeDownload slide Thomas Lawrence, The Angerstein Children, 1807. © Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Photo: Jörg P. Anders. Portraits of non-family members also formed part of Angerstein’s collection. Again, this was traditional among the aristocracy; in particular, images of monarchs might be included in order to convey a family’s loyalty to the crown, or links might be made via painted or sculpted likenesses to particular political affiliations as with the the pantheon of sculpted Whig grandees at Woburn Abbey. Angerstein owned a couple of portraits after Lawrence of members of the royal family as well as of the Emperor of Austria.72 By contrast, there were very few sculptures either of royalty or leading politicians in Angerstein’s villa. Included in Heirlooms List 1 are a sculpted likeness of George IV by Francis Chantrey and a marble bust of Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, a figure whom Angerstein much admired. In fact it was Angerstein himself who organized a death mask of Pitt to be made by the sculptor Joseph Nollekens, from which the marble bust and seventy-three others were produced, plus cheaper plaster casts (Fig. 10).73 At one time it appears Angerstein also owned a painted likeness of Pitt, by Lawrence.74 In similar vein, Angerstein acquired in 1818 a portrait of the Duke of Wellington by Lawrence.75 The Battle of Waterloo had taken place in 1815, when Angerstein was eighty years old and yet, in spite of his age, he had been prominent in the setting up of the Waterloo Fund, established to provide support for indigent widows and children of deceased soldiers, and had corresponded with Wellington about it. The portrait was probably a way of commemorating a notable episode which brought a famous public figure into contact with the banker-cum-collector. Worth noting here are the numerous prints at Woodlands, dominated by the likenesses of military and naval commanders, including Nelson, Howe, Camperdown, Rodney, Vincent, Heathfield, Cornwallis, Spencer, and Elliott.76 Fig. 10. View largeDownload slide Joseph Nollekens, William Pitt the younger, c.1806–23. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London, a.11–1925. Fig. 10. View largeDownload slide Joseph Nollekens, William Pitt the younger, c.1806–23. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London, a.11–1925. Of portraits of well-known people in spheres other than politics, we should mention Garrick between Tragedy and Comedy, painted by Reynolds around 1771 (Fig. 11). Angerstein, who was a keen theatre-goer, probably bought the picture as a result of his admiration for both subject (the famous eighteenth-century actor and theatre manager, David Garrick) and artist.77 Angerstein also knew Lord Heathfield, the celebrated Governor of Gibraltar, from the Veterinary College, where both men were directors, so it was appropriate that Lawrence should give his patron a portrait of Heathfield by Reynolds. Despite it being a gift from a close friend, the Heathfield portrait hung at Pall Mall. My assumption is that the Garrick portrait, as a favourite image, was displayed in Angerstein’s more private home. One can imagine that similar reasoning lay behind Angerstein’s decision to keep an attractive portrait noted in the 1874 sale as by Reynolds of Nelly O’Brien, the famous courtesan and friend of the painter, at his Blackheath villa.78 In fact that sale included another half dozen portraits by Reynolds as well as a self-portrait79 (and a portrait of Reynolds by Jackson).80 There are also a number of other portraits listed in the 1874 sale by other leading British artists, namely Hogarth, Lawrence, and Romney, many of which depict literary or artistic figures.81 Angerstein’s collection contained numerous pictures based on literature, many by the Swiss-born painter Henry Fuseli, who became resident in England after being elected as Professor of Painting at the Royal Academy, and who was another longstanding friend of Angerstein. As already noted, the three Fuselis which hung on the staircase at Pall Mall were not purchased by the government.82 Interestingly, from Heirlooms List 2, we know that Angerstein’s grandson William inherited three more Fuselis: a Female at a Fountain, a Scene from Hamlet, and Perseus carrying off the Head of the Medusa, while included in the 1874 sale was a painting by Fuseli entitled Dante’s Vision.83 Subject pictures noted in Heirloom List 1 include two by Robert Smirke of scenes from Don Quixote while the second lists of heirlooms included a painting of The Centaur Nessus & Dejanara by Cipriani. Reynolds’s Nymph and Piping Boy, often noted as being in Angerstein’s collection in contemporary accounts, does not appear in either lists of heirlooms (Fig. 12).84 Fig. 11. View largeDownload slide Joshua Reynolds, Garrick between Tragedy and Comedy, 1760–1. Waddesdon (Rothschild Family) on loan since 1995; © National Trust, Waddesdon Manor. Fig. 11. View largeDownload slide Joshua Reynolds, Garrick between Tragedy and Comedy, 1760–1. Waddesdon (Rothschild Family) on loan since 1995; © National Trust, Waddesdon Manor. Fig. 12. View largeDownload slide Joshua Reynolds, Nymph and Piping Boy, c.1785–6. © The National Trust, Polesden Lacey, Surrey, nt 1246450. Fig. 12. View largeDownload slide Joshua Reynolds, Nymph and Piping Boy, c.1785–6. © The National Trust, Polesden Lacey, Surrey, nt 1246450. Woodlands also housed numerous classicizing landscapes by artists such as Richard Wilson, George Barrett, John Glover, and ‘Old Havell’,85 some of whose works feature again in the 1874 sale.86 Among Angerstein’s most prescient purchases, and one of the few watercolours in his collection, was Turner’s Caernarvon Castle, which had been inspired by Turner’s visit to see the pictures at Pall Mall by Claude, which may have been the reason Angerstein bought it.87 Less highbrow were some genre scenes by the likes of George Morland.88 A final group of paintings at Blackheath were of animals: while the lists of heirlooms mention a Sawrey Gilpin and a Ferneley, the 1874 sale included other paintings of animals by Stubbs, John Ward and Richard Westall.89 Finally, there were works by family members – most listed under ‘Lock’ which presumably refers to William, the artistic son of Angerstein’s friend William Lock, who was considered something of a child prodigy and whose early talent was nurtured by Fuseli and William Gilpin.90 There was also a copy by Angerstein’s daughter-in-law, Amelia Lock, of Aurora after Guido,91 and an image of Norbury Park by ‘Miss Boucherett’ – presumably a reference to Amelia (née Crokatt), Angerstein’s stepdaughter from his first marriage.92 The collection at Woodlands as a reflection of Angerstein’s promotion of British art What can we say of Angerstein’s choices of pictures at Woodlands and the motivations that lay behind them? It is notable that some of these British artists were well established – Reynolds, Wilson, Barrett, Nollekens; others, including Lawrence and Turner, were aspiring young artists when they first came to Angerstein’s attention. One might think that, as an astute businessman, Angerstein was attracted to such art on account of its relatively low prices, especially in comparison with the sums he was paying out for his Old Masters. Not all of it, however, was inexpensive; for instance, Angerstein paid 40 guineas for Turner’s Caenarvon Castle, which was well over the going rate. A clearer motivation was patriotism. There is insufficient space here to do justice to Angerstein’s little-known support of native British talent but at least one can suggest the three types of activity he undertook to further this end: firstly, he allowed painters and amateurs to study the pictures in his collections, receiving a variety of visitors to Pall Mall from the early 1800s, including Turner, Constable, B. R. Haydon and Mary Moser.93 Given the less central location and the lesser quality of most of the pictures at Woodlands, it is not surprising that fewer artists came to study at Blackheath, although we do have one well-known account of the boy-prodigy George Morland copying the Garrick portrait there as early as the mid-1770s,94 and as late as 1821 the Welsh painter, Penry Williams, visited Woodlands to copy some of the landscape paintings, and ended up making a sketch of Angerstein’s dog, with which Angerstein was ‘so pleased’ that he paid 5 guineas for it.95 Secondly, Angerstein was a generous subscriber to various appeals which paid for public monuments, including Matthew Wyatt’s Cenotaph for Princess Charlotte and an Equestrian statue of George III. Angerstein promoted British art in other, more indirect ways, through membership of various bodies like the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, set up in 1754, and the British Institution founded in 1805, both of which sought to encourage native artists in the skills of drawing and provided venues where artists could exhibit their work for sale, and both of which, from an early date, started to host annual exhibitions. For instance, he lent works to the British Institution Old Master exhibitions, including Reynolds’s Garrick portrait and Nymph and Piping Boy from Woodlands for the Institution’s Reynolds’s one-man show of 1813.96 He also lent some of his Old Master paintings from his Pall Mall Collection to the Royal Academy, once it had established its Painting School in 1816. Personal preference must also have contributed to the character of the collection. There were other artists whose work he could have purchased, but chose not to. Benjamin West, for instance, failed to sell Angerstein two of his own creations, Apollo and Phaeton and Cicero’s Villa, on more than one occasion.97 Nor did Angerstein acquire any examples of Joseph Farington’s topographical drawings, despite their lengthy friendship. Presumably too Angerstein’s wives’ personal preferences were central to what was bought for and displayed at Woodlands. The relationship between Woodlands and No. 100 Pall Mall How did the collection at Woodlands relate to the one at Pall Mall? The first point to make is that in the formation and display of the Old Master collection, Angerstein was advised by Thomas Lawrence and to a lesser extent by an earlier president of the Royal Academy, Benjamin West. Such assistance was not given to anything like the same degree at Woodlands. In one extant letter to Lawrence of 1819, for instance, Angerstein notes how he had rearranged pictures and prints at Blackheath.98 This was doubtless because of differences in the quality of the pictures on display and in the way that Angerstein viewed the purpose of both collections. Woodlands appears originally to have been relatively simply adorned.99 Over time, increasing numbers of paintings were hung there, and until the final character of the Pall Mall collection was established, there was a certain amount of exchanging of paintings between the two houses. Thus, in an account in the Views of Noblemen and Gentlemen’s Seats of 1804, the author noted that Woodlands had: ‘a small, but valuable collection of pictures, among which, Sir J. Reynolds’s celebrated portrait of Garrick, between tragedy and comedy; the Venus, a well-known picture by the same artist; a fine portrait of Rubens by Vandyke; and a very beautiful landscape with cattle, by Cuyp claim particular note’. The Van Dyke and Cuyp were later transferred to Pall Mall, from where they were purchased for the National Gallery.100 Consequently, it was not at this time uncommon for visitors to Woodlands to comment on the quality of the pictures. For instance, Priscilla Wakefield in Perambulations in London, published in 1809, noted of Angerstein’s villa that ‘the lover of the fine arts is well amused with the choice pictures that adorn the house’. 101 Increasingly, however, a more precise division of pictures took place, under Lawrence’s guidance, so that Angerstein’s Pall Mall collection became less indicative of a private taste and more of a showcase of acknowledged masterpieces in the Grand Manner. By 1823, the The Picture of London could note: ‘The pictures are exquisite, but chosen without reference to any other quality than the opinion of the dealers and virtuosi’.102 Woodlands became increasingly a rural retreat where Angerstein surrounded himself, in a traditional fashion, with images of family and friends, works of art by family members, certain favourite images and a number of other works by contemporary and historic British and Continental Old Master painters for which there was no room in his London town house – which is not to say there were not some very high quality pieces and that visitors were not interested in its holdings. The typicality of the art collection at Woodlands A final question may be asked concerning the typicality of Angerstein’s collection at Woodlands, especially its holdings of British art. Here it should be pointed out that some aristocrats, alongside their traditional interest in collecting the Old Masters, patronized living British artists and among the most important were Lords Lansdowne, Swinburne and Northwick, who were praised in the pages of the Art Journal, as well as Lord Egremont, who encouraged Turner and Leslie. Most extreme was Sir John Flemingh Leicester, a politician, landowner and amateur artist, whose galleries at No. 24 Hill Street, Mayfair, and at Tabley House, Cheshire were filled exclusively with British paintings. Nor should it be forgotten that a new interest in the patronage and collecting of native art started to be taken by the aspiring wealthy middle classes, such that by the mid-nineteenth century the nation had received significant gifts and bequests of British art, notably the Vernon collection at the National Gallery and the Sheepshanks collection at the South Kensington Museum, while other significant gifts came from artists, including the painter J.M.W. Turner’s bequest in 1851 and the sculptor Sir Francis Chantrey’s endowment of an annual fund on his death in 1841 for the purchase of art produced in Britain.103 Arguably, Angerstein may be seen to act as a bridge between these two classes: he was of similar age and taste to the older generation of aristocratic collectors, and yet he was a self-made man and had not been on a Grand Tour. Clearly he was a man of his time – belonging to what Francis Haskell dubbed ‘the Orléans generation’ –104 and the type of British pictures displayed at Woodlands – and for that matter at Pall Mall – proves as much. They share little in common with the genre/real life subjects that would dominate the Vernon and Sheepshanks collections of the type and that would come to characterize British municipal art galleries in the later part of the century; instead his portraits by leading Grand Manner artists and his aspirational ‘history’ pictures reflect, if in a less advanced degree, the collections of Sir John Fleming Leicester and of Thomas Hope, the Dutch-born collector and designer from a successful banking family. Ultimately, however, Leicester and Hope achieved much more than Angerstein in promoting British art. Firstly, they commissioned or bought comparatively more grandiose mythological, religious or historical paintings, whereas for Angerstein such images formed the minor portion of his English pictures. For instance, Hope paid John Flaxman to produce a set of illustrations to Dante in early 1790s, and bought for considerable sums ambitious history paintings such as The Rest on the Flight into Egypt by Benjamin Haydon, The Burgesses of Calais before Edward III by the young William Hilton, and John Martin’s Fall of Babylon. Furthermore, their promotion was of a more public kind. In Hope’s case, his house in Duchess Street, with its series of themed rooms, filled with a mixture of antiquities and modern painting and sculpture, was opened from 1802 to select visitors, two years later that invitation being extended to members of the Royal Academy. And as for Leicester, Douglas Hall has noted that his importance as a collector ‘was that he not only liked having modern British subject pictures on his walls but deliberately preferred them to old masters, and was prepared to back his choices by admitting the public to his gallery’.105 Indeed, increasingly interested in the potential role of his art collection as a national collection of British art, Leicester not only opened his collection from 1809, but then offered it (in vain) to the Prime Minister in 1823 as the basis for a National Gallery of British Art. By contrast, while keen to patronize and promote British painting in the various ways noted above, the impact of Angerstein’s British art collection was ultimately diminished by being kept in his suburban villa rather in his London town house. Nor did Angerstein, doubtless bearing in mind the subject matter, quality and financial value of his British pictures, have any intention of offering anything from Woodlands as a gift to the nation. He knew that his most esteemed pictures were his Continental Old Masters and certainly Lord Liverpool thought that it was this type of grandiose art that should form the bedrock of any pioneering national collection. Supplementary material Supplementary information is supplied at Journal of the History of Collections online in the form of a transcription of ‘List of Articles held by William Angerstein Esq. as Heirlooms under the Will of John Julius Angerstein who died In 1823’ – referred to in the article as Heirlooms List 1 (Appendix a); a transcription of ‘Pictures at Weeting Hall which passed as Heirlooms under the Will of Jn. Angerstein Esq to General Angerstein and now belonging to William Angerstein, Esq.’ – referred to in the article as Heirlooms List 2 (Appendix b); and transcriptions of contemporary published accounts of four parties held at Woodlands: (i) a ‘public breakfast’ on 2 July 1803 from Samuel Jackson Pratt’s Gleanings in England (London, 1803), vol. 3, pp. 627–8.; (ii) ‘Second Aquatic Trip’, Morning Post, 16 July 1803; (iii) ‘Miss Angerstein’s Public Breakfast’, Staffordshire Advertiser, 7 July 1804; and (iv) ‘Mr. Angerstein’s Grand Fete’, Morning Post, 24 July 1807 (Appendix c). Acknowledgements I would like to thank Tania Adams, Stephen Bending, Susan Bennett, James Carleton Paget, Shirley Fry, Alastair Laing, Stephen Lloyd, Lynda McLeod, Nicholas Penny, Tom Stammers, Jon Stobart and Anthony Twist for their generous help with various aspects of my research, including, in some cases, comments on an earlier version of this article. I gave a talk on this topic to the conference ‘A Revolution in Taste: Francis Haskell’s Nineteenth Century’, organized by Tom Stammers and held at St John’s College, Oxford, 23–24 October 2015. Footnotes 1 See Anthony Twist, A Life of John Julius Angerstein, 1735–1823: Widening circles of finance, philanthropy, and the arts in eighteenth-century London (London, 2006), pp. 447–65. 2 The Hogarth self-portrait and the Wilkie were transferred to the Tate Gallery at Millbank in 1951 and 1919, respectively. 3 These four works are included along with the thirty-eight purchased pictures in John Young’s bilingual (French and English), illustrated catalogue of July 1823, A Catalogue of the Celebrated Collection of Pictures of the late John Julius Angerstein, Esq. Containing a Finished Etching of Every Picture, and accompanied with Historical and Biographical Notices. The three Fuselis appear at the end of the volume, as nos 40–42; the Reynolds’s portrait of ‘Mrs. Angerstein and Child’ is no. 28. Presumably, John Angerstein would not have meant to offer for sale the only painting of his own mother, and so the Reynolds portrait may have been included in the catalogue in error just because it was in Pall Mall. Angerstein may not have wished to confront his second wife with a portrait of his first, which may explain its location at Pall Mall rather than at Woodlands. The Fuselis were probably turned down because they were not highly valued at that time and would have occupied a large amount of wall space. I am grateful to Anthony Twist for discussing this matter with me. 4 According to Neil Rhind, Blackheath Village and Environs, vol. ii: 1790–1820 (Blackheath, 1983), p. 274, Angerstein leased the land on which he built Woodlands from 1774, but actually lived there from 1776. After Angerstein’s death, it became the family home of his son, John. It then passed to John’s son, John Julius William, and after his death in 1866, as a bachelor, to another son William, who surrendered the lease in 1870 and who arranged for the contents to be sold in July 1873. Woodlands still stands in Mycenae Road, Blackheath. In the earlier twentieth century, it served as a convent for the Sisterhood of the Little Sisters of the Assumption. In 1967 it was bought by the Greenwich Borough Council, and between 1972 and 2003 served as an Art Gallery and Local History Centre. Since 2006 it has been used as a Steiner School. See Cyril Fry and John Bunston, John Julius Angerstein and Woodlands, 1774–1974, exh. cat., Woodlands Art Gallery (Blackheath, 1974), p. 9. 5 See Cyril Fry, ‘The Angersteins of Woodlands’, Transactions of the Greenwich and Lewisham Antiquarian Society 7 no. 2 (1966), pp. 86–105. 6 It is not clear when, precisely, Angerstein started to buy paintings, but we do know that he had the Garrick portrait by Reynolds and three family portraits by Reynolds before the 1790s. 7 For details of Angerstein’s forty-five years as a financier, see Twist, op. cit. (note 1), esp. chapters 1, 2, 4, and 9. 8 Ibid, p. 71. 9 For Angerstein’s involvement with the Patriotic Fund, see ibid, pp. 275–97. For more about Angerstein’s other charitable activities, see ibid, chapters 2, 6 and 10. 10 Ibid, p. 103. 11 See Elizabeth McKellar, Landscapes of London: The city, the country and the suburbs, 1660–1840 (New Haven, 2013); Dorian Gerhold, ‘London’s suburban villas and mansions, 1660–1830’, London Journal 34 no. 3 (2009), pp. 250–52; Dorian Gerhold, Villas and Mansions of Roehampton and Putney Heath (Wandsworth, 1997); and Dana Arnold (ed.), The Georgian Villa (Stroud, 1996). 12 Paul Langford, A Polite and Commercial People: England 1727–1783 (Oxford, 1989), p. 422, who cites a contemporary tract in which the practice of commuting, novel to eighteenth-century businessmen (like Angerstein), is described: ‘The greater part of his family are chiefly in the rural mansion, where he himself passes his nights, and only repairs to the city for the transaction of his commercial affairs by day.’ 13 See Rhind, op. cit. (note 4), and Clive Aslet, The Story of Greenwich (London, 1999); Langford, op. cit. (note 12), p. 420. 14 See John Summerson, Architecture in Britain, 1530–1850 (London, 1970), pp. 372–4. 15 Rhind, op. cit. (note 4), p.274 notes: ‘perhaps, Angerstein originally considered it [Woodlands] as no more than a superior country cottage for holidays and weekends and that he intended to reside principally at his house in Pall Mall. But the evidence is clear that he spent increasing time at Blackheath and that his children were to regard it as their first home.’ 16 Angerstein took a ninety-nine year lease at £85 a year. See Fry and Bunston, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 2, 64–70. 17 Part of the description added to the engraving a Woodlands, republished in The Copperplate Magazine in 1795; quoted in Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 46. 18 Nikolaus Pevsner and Bridget Cherry, The Buildings of England: London 2: South (London, 1983), p. 249. See also H. M. Colvin, Biographical Dictionary of English Architects, 3rd edn (London, 1995), p. 408. 19 TheCopper Plate Magazine of 1795 republished an earlier engraving by James Walker, after a drawing by Richard Corbould, dated 1786 and inscribed: ‘Woodland House, in Kent, the Seat of John Julius Angerstein Esq.’. 20 Reproduced in John Summerson’s Georgian London (London, 1962), pl. 16. See Fry and Bunston, op. cit. (note 4), p. 68, who note that the roundel ‘may have been a piece of mass produced architectural decoration, for a similar roundel exists in the pediment of one of the surviving Adam brothers houses in Portland Place, Marylebone (Nos. 46/48), and another existed on the demolished No. 37 Portland Place.’ 21 Fry and Bunston, op. cit. (note 4), p. 2; Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 337. 22 These additions have gone, leaving the house looking more as it originally did, even though the entrance is now through a porch on the south side. See Fry and Bunston, op. cit (note 4), pp. 64–70. Rhind op. cit. (note 4), p. 275, suggests that the west wing served ‘possibly as a home for [Angerstein’s] son John’ and that the ‘riding school may have been built for the benefit of the Angerstein grandchildren but may, also, have had a private military intention in that numerous bands of volunteer militia were formed in the district from 1799 onwards and there are references to drill sessions in Angerstein’s riding school.’ 23 See Fry and Bunston, op. cit (note 4), p. 68, who note that the architectural detail over the bow windows consisted of ‘a full entablature . . . an architrave of triglyphs; a frieze of scrolls of acanthus stems and leaves, with a medallion flanked by griffons in the centre; and a simple moulded cornice’. 24 Ibid, p. 65. It appears that Sir Thomas Lawrence followed suit. See letter from Jeremy Bentham to Sir Samuel Bentham, 16 January 1823 (http://dx.doi.org/10.13051/ee:doc/bentje ou0110191a1c): ‘T’other day I saw here a man of the name of Hague of whom I have bespoke a new apparatus of his invention, for warming my house with steam. He was recommended to me by Place for whom he has done much business of other kinds. The invention has had capital success, (it seems) at Angerstein’s at Woodlands, at Sir Thomas Lawrence’s the Painter, &c &c &c.’ I am grateful to Susan Bennett for drawing this letter to my attention. 25 Quoted in Fry and Bunston, op. cit. (note 4), p. 65. 26 See ibid, p. 67. 27 Public Characters of 1803–4, pp. 401–2. 28 Robert Sweet, The Hothouse and Greenhouse Manual, 5th edn (London, 1831), pp. 205–8; quoted in Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 47. 29 T. Noble, ‘Blackheath: A Didactic and Descriptive Poem’ (London, 1808), p. 93; quoted in Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 50. 30 Alan Sutton (ed.), The Complete Diary of a Cotswold Parson: The Diaries of the Revd Francis Edward Witts, 1783–1854, vol. i:‘The Nomad’ (Ambersley, 2008), pp. 678–9. Witts opined of Angerstein’s conservatory that ‘[t]he fruit & flower Houses surpass[ed] in beauty even Lord Tankerville’s, though Stewart owns that in the latter he yields the palm in point of rarity & numbers, though not in beauty of arrangement to Mr Hibbert’s near Clapham’. See also diary entry for 21 August 1805 (ibid, p. 680), when Witts again visited Woodlands with his parents, and ‘delighted in his Conservatory, & feasted on fruit’, given them by Stewart, a former employee. I am grateful to Stephen Lloyd for sharing these extracts from his ancestor’s diary with me. 31 For transcriptions of published accounts of four parties at Woodlands that took place in July 1803 (on two separate occasions), July 1804 and July 1807, see the supplementary material (see online Appendix c). 32 J. C. Loudon, Encyclopaedia of Gardening (London, 1822), quoted in Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 436. 33 W. H. Ireland, History of the County of Kent (London, 1830), vol. iv, p. 680. The Annual Biography and Obituary for 1824 mentioned, as a highlight of the conservatory, ‘a superb and lofty pine from Van Dieman’s land, for which Mr Angerstein was once offered a thousand guineas’. 34 Robert Sweet, Geraniaceae (London, 1824), p. 353. 35 Jon Stobart states that ‘villas were seldom the venue for large-scale entertaining’; see Jon Stobart, ‘“So agreeable and suitable a place”: the character, use and provisioning of a late eighteenth-century suburban villa’, Journal of Eighteenth-Century Studies 39 (March 2016), pp. 89–102; doi: 10.1111/1754-0208.12279. 36 Samuel Jackson Pratt, Gleanings in England (London, 1803), vol. iii, pp. 627–8, describing a ‘public breakfast’ on 2 July 1803. This volume of a three-part book was dedicated to John Julius Angerstein who, the author noted (p. iv), ‘to the more essential qualities of a great and good man, superadds a love of the fine arts, and encourages the talents which produce them: and who, when the insatiable hand of a Universal Plunderer [Napoleon], would have appropriated every foreign Repository, secured to this Country a domestic treasure, in those great works, the study of which, is so necessary to the rising art.’ A similar event had taken place the previous summer at Woodlands; see ‘Mr. Angerstein’s Public Breakfast’, Morning post, 28 June 1802, p. 3. 37 ‘Second Aquatic Trip’, Morning Post, 16 July 1803, p. 3. I am grateful to Anthony Twist for pointing out this newspaper report to me. 38 See ‘Miss Angerstein’s Breakfast’, Staffordshire Advertiser, 7 July 1804, p. 3. 39 ‘Mr. Angerstein’s Grand Fete’, Morning Post, 24 July 1807, p. 3; see Twist, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 307–8. I am grateful to Anthony Twist for pointing out this newspaper report to me. 40 In personal email correspondence of 12 January 2017, Dr Twist notes: ‘I know that it’s often stated that Dr Johnson, Garrick and Hanway visited Woodlands, but I’ve been unable to find any evidence of this in books about the three men. The Burneys knew Johnson well, and I’d have thought that any acquaintance [Angerstein] had had with him would’ve been talked about when Fanny Burney became close to the Locks. [Angerstein] certainly admired Garrick; and he’d have known Hanway through shared business and philanthropic interests, but not well enough to get a mention in James Stephen Taylor’s biography of Hanway’. 41 Twist, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 344–5, cites Farington’s lengthy description of a dinner he recorded attending at Pall Mall on 26 February 1804. The first dinner Farington attended at Woodlands took place in July 1805; on 26 August 1814 Angerstein gave a ‘sumptuous’ dinner, which included turtle, turbot, salmon and venison; while on 23 July 1821 Farington recorded that he and Lawrence, after visiting Dulwich Picture Gallery, went on to Woodlands where they looked at the pictures and enjoyed a ‘handsome cold collation’ and conversation with a ‘very cheerful’ Angerstein. 42 See, for example, Farington’s diary entry for 29 March 1807 and Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 347. 43 For instance, see ibid, p. 211. In July 1801 Lord Glenbervie dined with the Princess of Wales at Montague House and recorded the event in his journal: ‘Mr Angerstein . . . is a man of excellent character and pleasing manners, and has formed a valuable collection of pictures. He has a very handsome villa between Blackheath and Woolwich, where most of the party are resident at present.’ The guests on this occasion were mostly members of Angerstein’s extended family. 44 Anthony Twist, in his unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2002, p. 175, notes that in 1812 Angerstein chaired a meeting of the British and Foreign Bible Society at Woodlands, at which an auxiliary branch was set up. 45 See Fry and Bunston, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 69–70. 46 Quoted in Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 46. 47 See Geoffrey A. Godden, ‘The Angerstein service and its attribution’, Connoisseur (April 1966), pp. 236–8; Fry and Bunston, op. cit. (note 4), p. 20; Twist, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 353–4. 48 Angerstein’s will and both lists of heirlooms are held at the London Metropolitan Archives, London: f/ang. The parts of them which relate to works of art are transcribed with the supplementary material (online Appendix a and Appendix b). Angerstein’s will stipulated that all ‘Angerstein’s books Plate and other Pictures [i.e. presumably those not at Pall Mall which were directed to be sold]’ were to be ‘held & used by his Son during his lifetime’ and after his death were to be ‘intitled into the Norfolk Estate in the Nature of Heirlooms’. 49 See Catalogue of a Collection of Pictures, The Property of a Gentleman, Removed from Blackheath; Comprising Fine Examples of the Italian and Dutch Schools, and including pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds, Gainsborough, Richard Wilson, Old Crome, J.B. Crome, J. Ward, G. Stubbs, And most of the best Masters of the Old English School: Which will be sold by Auction, by Messrs. Christie, Manson & Woods, At their Great Rooms, 8, King Street, St. James’s Square, On Saturday, June 20, 1874. The Christie’s auctioneer’s copy of the sale has ‘Angerstein’ hand-written at the beginning of the sale and the consignor ‘Daybook’ confirms that the consignor was ‘W. Angerstein’ (John Julius’s grandson). It has a Lugt number: 34990. I am grateful to Lynda McLeod, Librarian, Christie’s Archive, for this information. 50 The first sale not formally associated with Woodlands is the one that took place on 30 January 1875. The title of the sale was ‘A Collection of Pictures by Italian, Flemish, French and English Masters’ and there were 140 lots (Lugt no. 35318). It was described as being the ‘Property of a Gentleman’ but no location was included in the title of the sale. We know that it was consigned by William Angerstein because the Christie’s auctioneer’s copy of the sale has ‘W. Angerstein’ hand-written at the beginning of the sale and his name is also listed in the relevant consignor Daybook. Later picture sales with which William Angerstein’s name is linked took place at Christie’s on 4 April 1895, 20-24 May 1895, 4 July 1896 and 4 December 1897. Lugts’s Repertoire des catalogues de ventes lists further sales of sculpture, including antique and modern bronzes and marbles, where William Angerstein was the consignor 51 For the 1898 offer, see relevant correspondence in the National Gallery archive, ng7/217/11. For the 1965 offer, see relevant correspondence in the same archive, ng14/230/1. Among the Rowley pictures, now in the possession of David and Charlotte Boehm, is Lawrence’s portrait of the John Angerstein, which was certainly a Woodlands picture. 52 Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 208. 53 The same subject by the same artist appears twice – either Angerstein owned two portraits of Baron Muilman by Netscher or the same work is listed twice. Several related items appear in Heirlooms List 1: Portraits of the Muilman Family by an unnamed painter, and a Portrait of Female of Muilman Family again with no artist given, which is followed by an entry with ditto marks implying that there was another work by the same artist of the same subject. 54 Sale of 20 June 1874: Titian, Andromeda (lot 28) and A Stag-Hunt (lot 33); Tintoretto, Jupiter and Leda (lot 27) and Noli me tangere noted as ‘From Col. Hugh Baillie’s Collection’ (lot 40); Paolo Veronese, The Marriage of St Catherine (lot 38). 55 Sale of 20 June 1874: Bassano, The Adoration of the Shepherds (lot 20); A. Carracci, The Holy Family (lot 24), Susannah and the Elders (lot 30), The Descent from the Cross ‘From Col. Hugh Baillie’s Collection’ (lot 31), Mercury and Argus (lot 35), Andromeda (lot 37); L. Carracci, Head of an Apostle, oval (lot 15), The Virgin Reading and the Infant Christ (lot 39); Domenichino, The Death of Adonis (lot 22; now attributed to Antonio Carracci and at Tatton Park, National Trust); and Guido Reni, The Magdalene (lot 19). See also Schedoni, Holy Family with Saint Francis (lot 36), which is now attributed to either Annibale or Ludovico Carracci and is at Tatton Park (National Trust). 56 Sale of 20 June 1874: Cuyp, An Italian Landscape, with Cattle and Sheep near a Bridge (lot 6); De Koning, An Extensive Landscape, with Cattle in the Foreground by P. Potter (lot 12); Backhuyzen, A Sea-piece, with a Yacht and other Vessels (lot 5); De Vlieger, A Sea-piece with Vessels (lot 10); Van Goyen, A View of a Town on the Bank of a River (lot 4) and A Landscape, with Cottages and Peasants on a Road, ‘signed and dated 1630’ (lot 8); Van der Capella, The Beach at Scheveningen ‘with figures by Lingelbach’ (lot 11); A. Van de Velde, An Italian Landscape, with Peasants and Cattle (lot 9); W. Van de Velde, A Sea-piece with Vessels on a Lee Shore (lot 7). 57 Sale of 20 June 1874: Pinturrichio [sic], A pair of small panels, ‘painted with figures. From Mr. Roger’s Collection’ (lot 26); Holbein, Portrait of Edward VI (lot 25); and Chardin, Interior, with a Lady and Children, and its companion piece (lots 120 and 121). 58 Sale of 20 June 1874: Van Dyck, Head of a Man in a Black Dress and Hat –‘ In Crayons’ (2), and Rubens, A Sacrifice – ‘in crayons’ (3). 59 This is presumably the picture listed in Heirlooms List 2 as a portrait of John Julius Angerstein by Reynolds. It was sold in 1896; it is now in the City Art Museum, Saint Louis, Missouri. See Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 35. 60 The picture is listed in Heirlooms List 2 as ‘Mrs Angerstein (Wife of John Julius Angerstein Esq) and child (Juliana)’. It remained in the family until it was sold in 1896; it is now in a private collection. See ibid, pp. 99–100. 61 Heirlooms List 2 lists the original portrait while Heirlooms List 1 lists a portrait of William Lock the Elder as ‘After Sir T Lawrence by Burney’. Lawrence’s portrait of Lock is now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 62 The resulting copy is now in the National Gallery, having been presented by William IV in 1836. Heirlooms List 2 lists a portrait of John Julius Angerstein Esq by Lawrence but it is impossible to determine whether it refers to the likeness of Angerstein in middle age or old age. A replica was made soon after Angerstein’s death at the wish of George IV. 63 See, for example, Heirlooms List 1: Lawrence’s Portrait of Madam Sabloukoff, and Heirlooms List 2: Lawrence’s Miss Boucherett and her two Sisters and his Portrait of Madam Sabloukoff & Emily. See Fry and Bunston, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 10–11, 199–242, and Twist, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 123–4. 64 This painting is now at Kenwood House, London (English Heritage, Iveagh Bequest). 65 This painting is now in the Louvre, Paris. 66 In Heirloom List 2 we find a portrait of John Angerstein listed as ‘? After Lawrence’. 67 Listed in Heirlooms List 2 as Lawrence’s Amelia, Mrs Angerstein & Child (John Julius William Angerstein Esq). It is now in the Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, Geneva. 68 See Kenneth Garlick, Sir Thomas Lawrence (London, 1989), p. 156. For many years it was confused with Lawrence’s picture, Les Enfants de John Angerstein, acquired by the Louvre in 1975 which in fact depicts children of the Boucherett family. The painting of John Angerstein’s children is now in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin and reproduced here as Fig. 9. 69 Kenneth Garlick, ‘Lawrence’s Portraits of the Locks, the Angersteins and the Boucherettes [sic]’, Burlington Magazine 110 (December 1968), p. 669. 70 The original picture, listed in Heirlooms List 2 as Mrs Boucherett with Children in Crayons, remained in the possession of the Angerstein family until 1896; it is now untraced. A watercolour copy was done by W.M. Craig in 1814. A crayon drawing by Lawrence of John Angerstein Esq is also listed in Heirlooms List 2. 71 Heirlooms List 2 notes a portrait by Hoppner of William Locke [sic] aged 18 and Grant’s Portrait of General Angerstein. 72 Heirlooms List 1 notes Lawrence’s portrait of Francis Emperor of Austria, while Heirlooms List 2 lists as after Lawrence, Portrait of Princess Charlotte and Portrait of Prince Leopold. 73 See Twist, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 186–9. 74 The portrait by Lawrence appears to be a replica given to the Prince Regent by Angerstein (now in the Royal Collection), whilst the original, kept by Angerstein, was exhibited at the Academy in 1808 and is now in the collection of the Earl of Rosebery. 75 Heirlooms List 1 notes Lawrence’s The Duke of Wellington on his horse ‘Copenhagen’, while Heirlooms List 2 notes an Equestrian Portrait of the Duke of Wellington ‘after’ Lawrence. 76 See, for example, ‘11 prints’ with named sitters in Heirlooms List 1. 77 It is not mentioned in either list of heirlooms; it is now at Waddesdon Manor (Rothschild collection). 78 Sale of 20 June 1874 (lot 109). See Twist, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 105, 201. 79 Sale of 20 June 1874: by Reynolds: Prince Edward, Duke of York, brother of George III (lot 46), Portrait of the Fifth Duke of Devonshire in a Blue Dress (lot 61), Portrait of Mrs Thrale in a White Dress – ‘oval’ (lot 105), A Lady with a White Dress (lot 76), A Man in a Black Dress and Hat ‘in the style of Rembrandt’ (lot 97), Portrait of the Artist (lot 57). 80 Sale of 20 June 1874, lot 73, is described as ‘Portrait of Sr J. Reynolds in Spectacles’. 81 Sale of 20 June 1874: Hogarth’s Portrait of Gay the Poet (lot 60), Portrait of a Lady in a Pink Dress (lot 99), A Lady in a White Dress and Blue Ribbons (lot 80); Lawrence’s Lord Chancellor Thurlow (lot 48); Romney’s A Lady in a White Dress and Blue Sash (lot 47), A Female Head (lot 71), and Portrait of Mrs. Salmon, the celebrated singer, seated by a piano (lot 103). 82 Two of these, The creation of Eve, and The Deluge, are listed in Heirlooms List 2. 83 Sale of 20 June 1874 (lot 101). 84 It is now at Polesden Lacey, Surrey (National Trust). 85 Heirlooms List 1 includes Barrett’s Norbury Park (the home of Angerstein’s great friend, William Lock), two oval landscapes, and a Landscape with Cattle painted by Barrett and Gilpin; Havell’s Castle on Wooded Hill and Sylvan Scene with sheep and cattle; two of Glover’s landscapes; and ‘two landscapes in Indian ink’ by Wilson. Heirlooms List 2 includes another co-authored piece by Barrett and Gilpin: Landscape and deer in body colour. Three landscapes by Claude Joseph Vernet are also listed in Heirlooms List 1: The Mole at Naples with the Castel del Novo, A View in Sicily and The Morn. 86 Sale of 20 June 1874: Richard Wilson, An Italian Landscape, with figures under an umbrella (lot 44), Solitude (lot 45), A River Scene with Anglers: Evening (lot 50), An Italian Plain, with buildings, figures and goats (lot 52), A Woody Landscape with a Cascade (lot 54), A View of the Thames (lot 56), Landscape, with figures and horses on a bridge (lot 58), Solitude (lot 65), Roman Buildings with Ruins – a pair (lot 70), An Italian Landscape, with Figures in a Cart (lot 75), A River Scene, with a Tower and Figures (lot 84), View of a Town on a River (lot 85), View near Gravesend (lot 87), A Rocky River Scene (lot 92), An Italian River-scape, with a ruined bridge, figures, and cattle ‘From the Collection of Mr. Wright of Derby’ (lot 93), Lake Nemi ‘From Mr. Ford’s Collection’ (lot 96), An Italian Lake-Scene, with buildings and figures (lot 106), A View near Rome, looking over the Campagna, with a palace on a height on the right, two figures with dogs in the foreground, ‘From the Gaillott Collection’ (lot 110). By George Barrett, View of a Town, with ruins (lot 62), and Barrett and Gilpin, An Upright Woody Landscape: view in Norbury Park (lot 108). By Gainsborough, A Woody Landscape, with figures (lot 74), A Landscape, with a team of horses on a road - ‘painted on paper’ (lot 104), and A Woody River-Scene, with a cascade and cattle on a road (lot 107). 87 The current location is unknown; it does not appear in either list of heirlooms. 88 Heirlooms List 1 includes The Sweeps by ‘Old Moreland’. See also sale of 20 June 1874: Hogarth’s A Street Scene with Figures and Interior of a Tavern, lots 82 and 86, respectively; Morland’s Interior of a Shed with a Man, Calf and Dog (lot 68); Barker of Bath’s Figures at a Fair, and The Donkey Race –the companion (lots 77 and 78, respectively). 89 Heirlooms List 1 lists a portrait of the Favourite Horse of J. J. Angerstein Esq by Sawrey Gilpin and Heirlooms List 2 lists a portrait of a horse by Ferneley. See also sale of 20 June 1874: works by Stubbs: Portrait of ‘Volunteer,’ the property of Captain O’Kelly – ‘Engraved’ (lot 111), A Brown Horse – ‘Signed and dated 1779’ (lot 112), Portrait of the Godolphin Arabian – ‘Dated 1792’ (lot 113), Portrait of ‘Pumpkin’ the property of the Right Hon. C. J. Fox and Lord Foley, mounted by South – ‘Dated 1770’ (lot 114), A Bay Horse (lot 115), A Bay Horse and Sheep – ‘Dated 1783’ (lot 117), A Horse Attacked by a Lion (lot 51) and A Lion and Lioness in a Cavern – ‘Dated 1772’ (lot 116). By J. Ward and R. Westall: Buffalo Hunters Surprised by Lions (lot 100). 90 See Heirlooms List 1 which lists four works by Lock; Heirlooms List 2 lists another dozen or so works by him. See Fry and Bunston, op. cit. (note 4), p. 3 and Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 119. 91 See Heirlooms List 1. 92 See Heirlooms List 2. 93 See Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 211. 94 See J. T. Nettleship, George Morland (London, 1898), p. 10, quoting from J. Hassell, Life of George Morland (1805), and Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 220. A letter from Lawrence to Angerstein, 10 November , Pierpont Morgan Library, speaks about another young painter, a Mr Williams, copying from one of the Lawrence drawings at Woodlands: ‘My dear Sir, Mr Williams the young Student who has been at Woodlands, has shewn [sic] me the Drawing he has made from my Crayon Picture, which I think very delicate & pretty. The Countenances however of Madame Sabloukoff and the Miss Boucherette [sic] have fail’d a little, and I have desir’d him to leave it with me for my correction. He will have it again, on Monday’. 95 Cardiff Times, 14 February 1862, p. 6: ‘About the year 1821, he [Penry Williams] was much employed by a Mr. Young, secretary to the British Institution, who was getting up illustrated catalogues of some of our principal galleries of ancient paintings . . . Penry made the drawings from the landscape pictures, and this took him to many famous galleries belonging to the wealthy and titled. One of these visits was at Mr. Angerstein’s country house, Woodlands, Blackheath . . . One afternoon . . . at Woodlands, he made a sketch in pencil of Mr. A.’s little terrier dog . . . that gentleman was so pleased with it that he gave Penry five guineas for the sketch! and in other ways, equally complimentary, expressed his admiration of the artist’s genius.’ 96 See Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 399. 97 See Fry and Bunston, op. cit. (note 4), p. 26. As Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 354 notes, Angerstein did contribute 50 guineas to the purchase of West’s Christ Healing the Sick, when it was bought by the Governors of the British Institution as a first step towards the formation of a permanent national art collection. 98 See Royal Academy archive: law/3/6, letter from Angerstein to Lawrence, from Woodlands, 21 January 1819: ‘As you have chosen an aspect for Alexander it must by hung in the room with the last mentioned Drawing facing the door & in the place where Castle Conway hangs – I have now made that my dressing room – as I find going up stairs (particularly when I have the Cough troublesome) & my Sleeping room in the one which was my dressing room – with the Prints of our Naval Heroes last war & the Duke of Wellington & Lord Spencer with them – the Two Don Quixot pictures I have removed.’ 99 When Samuel Lysons described the apartments at Woodlands in Environs of London (London, 1796), vol. iv, p. 462, he noted that although they were ‘respectably fitted up’, they were ‘not remarkable for containing any works of virtù’. 100 Quoted in Fry and Bunston, op. cit. (note 4), p. 65. Cuyp, A Hilly River Landscape with a Horseman talking to a Shepherdess (ng53) and Van Dyck, Portrait of John Gage with Two Attendants (ng49). See also Public Characters of 1803–4 (London, 1804), pp. 396–7, quoted in Twist, op. cit. (note 1), p. 219, which notes works by British painters at Pall Mall, which ended up at Woodlands. 101 Priscilla Wakefield, Perambulations in London and its Environs: comprehending an historical sketch of the ancient state and progress of the British metropolis, a concise description of its present state, notices of eminent persons, and a short account of the surrounding villages; in letters designed for young persons (London, 1809). 102 For other opinions on the Pall Mall collection, see letter from Charles Lamb to William Hazlitt, quoted in Twist, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 218–9, Public Characters of 1803–4; and Journal of a Tour and Residence in Great Britain, during the Years 1810 and 1811, by Louis Simond (Edinburgh and London, 1817), pp. 202, 203–5. 103 The Art Union conducted a seventy-three-year long survey of British art, initiated with an article on the Vernon collection. Interestingly, Vernon had planned to include the Old Master paintings he had inherited in his gift, but the National Gallery’s Director, Charles Eastlake, declined them as of only minor interest. 104 Francis Haskell, Rediscoveries in Art. Some aspects of taste, fashion and collecting in England and France (New York, 1976, p. 96). 105 Douglas Hall, ‘The Tabley papers’, Walpole Society 38 (1960–62), p. 65. © The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Journal of the History of Collections – Oxford University Press
Published: Nov 2, 2017
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud