Bernard Mandeville's portrait

Bernard Mandeville’s portrait

Zie ook het artikel ‘Dat moet portret Mandeville zijn'

in Trouw van 12 maart, 2009

Bernard Mandeville?

What did Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) look like? So far, we have only known the two images above, left and centre, which appeared, in a much smaller size, in Mandeville’s Free Thoughts on Religion, the Church and National Happiness, edition 1720.

But on March 4th, 2009, we encountered by chance the portrait alongside, that immediately struck us because of the resemblance to these images, which we had known for many years. So a sudden shock of recognition. The portrait is in the National Portrait Gallery in London, nr 1261. Its artist is John Closterman (1660-1711). The painting is dated between 1702-1705. This portrait could have been used for the image to the left, whereas the image in the centre might represent Mandeville in 1720. See NPG .

As for James Thornhill (1675-1734), father-in-law of Hogarth, mentioned on the NPG website, see Wikipedia.

See also NPG, Beningbrough Hall, Saloon

A interesting link concerning ‘Kloosterman' - in Dutch - by Jacob Campo Weyerman, ‘Konstschilders’ (1729).

The provenance of the portrait NPG 1261

A research project

Here we will report progress in the project of defining the identity of the sitter in this portrait, whom we believe to be Bernard Mandeville, until we’ ll find evidence to the contrary.

Any help in this research project would be very much appreciated.

Next we present the information we have so far.

Will it ever be possible to find out with certainty whether it would be the sitter in this portrait is Bernard Mandeville? One way of research is to discover its provenance.

1. What we do know is the provenance for NPG. This is stated to be the London art trade in 1900.

Previously it had possibly been in the hands of Thomas Hamlet (1770-1853), the famous goldsmith and trader. For the portrait is cited in the catalogue of John Closterman’s work, by Malcolm Rogers in the 49^th Walpole Society volume 1983, p. 267. And Rogers states that inscribed on the portrait’s stretcher in a ? mid-nineteenth-century hand is ‘Portrait of Sir James Thornhill Painted by Imself Late the Property (of) Mr Hamlet’. But this portrait is not identifiable in any of Hamlet’s sales, 1833-41. James Thornhill (1675-1734), father-in-law of William Hogarth, is certainly not the sitter.

2. In 1899 the Wellcome Library in London purchased a manuscript (MS 3415) by Michael de Mandeville (1639-1699), the father of Bernard Mandeville. It contains ‘Notes of lectures at the Universities of Franeker and Nijmegen on the Institutes of Medicine, and on Cartesian Philosophy: in Latin. Holograph MS. by de Mandeville, written while a medical student.’

This manuscript must also have been in Bernard Mandeville’s estate, that was split up (see the next section).

As for its provenance, we quote from Wellcome Library’s entry:

- Early 19th cent. vellum binding. Margins slightly cropped in binding. The fly-leaves are watermarked 1824. - Signature of John Lee [1783-1866], antiquarian and scientist '. J. Lee Doctors Commons No. 390. Recovered Mr Wilson, London'.

2. Michael Mandeville (1699-1769), son of Bernard Mandeville, was the executor of Bernard Mandeville’s will. (It is unknown when and where Mandeville’s wife Elizabeth died.)

Michael Mandeville died childless. From his will we know his executors: Jeremiah Wilder, confectioner, of Cheapside, and John Elliott of Kennington Lane. When Michael Mandeville died, he dwelled with Elliott in Elliott’s house.

Supposing that Michael Mandeville kept both portrait and manuscript, it may be inferred from his will that they would have belonged to the goods that Michael Mandeville bequeathed to the said Elliott. Who was this John Elliott?