168开奖官方开奖网站查询

Lot 211
  • 211

English School

Estimate
40,000 - 60,000 GBP
Log in to view results
bidding is closed

Description

  • English School
  • Portrait of Elizabeth I (1533-1603)
  • inscribed upper left.: Elizabeth .D.G. Regina; and upper right: Angliae Et Hibernia 
  • oil on panel

Condition

STRUCTURE Painted on a single thin oak panel, bowed very slightly at the edges. The panel is in good condition, with no cracks and no cradleing, and is providing a stable, firm support for the painting. PAINT SURFACE The painting appears to be in very good condition. there are no apparent areas of damage or paint loss, thought there is a discoloured, dirty varnish overall. The painting would appear to be in untouched condition. ULTRAVIOLET Examination under ultraviolet light confirms the opacity of the varnish and the layer of surface dirt overall. There is no apparent recent retouching, though there is perhaps some very minor old strengthening in the hair. The painting would appear to be in largely original condition. DENDROCHRONOLOGY Dendrochronology on the panel has revealed it to be of Baltic oak, a commonly used material in sixteenth century England as a less expensive alternative to domestic oak, and provides an earliest date for the panel of 1575, and a likely usage date of between 1575 and 1607. To read the full dendrochronology report please contact Julian Gascoigne on +44 (0)207 293 5482. PAINT TEST Examination of the paint in the present portrait reveals that the work is executed on a prepared white chalk ground. The grey of the background and the black of the costume are both based on a lead white and finely-ground charcoal black, whilst the highlights of the jewellery are of pure lead tin yellow, indicating that the painting is sixteenth-century. FRAME Held in a carved and painted period style frame, with a gilded inner edge. To speak to a specialist please contact Julian Gascoigne on +44 (0)207 293 5482, or at julian.gascoigne@laitexier.com.
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

Catalogue Note

This recently discovered painting is based on a portrait of Elizabeth I by Quentyn Metsys the Younger painted in circa 1583 (Palazza Reale, Siena), and is an exiting addition to the catalogue of known images of the Queen. Known as the Sieve Portrait the prototype depicts the Queen as Tuccia, the Vestal Virgin who proved her chastity by carrying a sieve full of water from the Tiber to the Temple of Vesta. Celebrated both by Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History, and in Petrarch's Triumph of Chastity, the allusion to the vestal Tuccia ties in with other iconography from Elizabeth's reign, with its apparent interlinking of classical mythology and Renaissance imperialism. As such it serves as a clear metaphor for her identification as the Virgin Queen. As well as being symbolic of chastity the sieve was also emblematic of wisdom and discernment, and appeared thus in Whitney's Choice of Emblems published in 1586, the implication♓ thus being that Elizabeth's wise government is a di♐rect result of her virgin state. 

Dendrochronology on the panel has revealed it to be of Baltic oak, a commonly used material in sixteenth century England, and provides an earliest date for the panel of 1575, and a likely usage date of between 1575 and 1607. This analysis confirms the opinion of Sir Roy Strong, who saw the painting from a photograph, and dated it 𝕴stylistically to the 1580s.