^{page 257 note 1} The following list of sculptures in Britain, all at least based on Bernini's designs, is adapted from Professor Wittkower's Index of Places (Wittkower, R., Gian Lorenzo Bernini The Sculptor of the Roman Baroque (2nd edn., 1960), 279–83):Google Scholar

Blenheim Palace

Duke of Marlborough:

(i) Small copy of the Fountain of the four Rivers

London

Victoria and Albert Museum:

(ii) Life-size marble group of Neptune and Triton

(iii) Marble bust of Thomas Baker

(iv) Bronze bust of Pope Innocent X

(v) Terracotta replica of St. Jerome

(vi) Bozzetto of kneeling figure of the pope for the tomb of Alexander VII

(vii) Terracotta bust of St. Philip Neri

Wallace Collection:

(viii) Roubilliac's marble bust of Charles I

Courtauld Institute; Lee of Fareham Collection:

(ix) Terracotta bust of Charles I

J. M. Trusted Collection:

(x) Bozzetto for the Angel of the Habakkuk group

Cyril HumpAris Ltd:

(xi) Small bronze bust of Duke Palo Giordano Orsini

Orsini

Oxford

Ashmolean Museum:

(xii) Bronze of the equestrian statue of Constantine

Windsor

Royal Collection:

(xiii) Marble bust of Charles I by Thomas Adye

Professor Wittkower's catalogue makes clear the authenticity of these works. Briefly, they may be said to range from the ‘autograph’ Neptune and Triton (ii), through the Thomas Baker (iii), which probably received at least the finishing touches from Bernini's hands, to the bronze of Innocent X (iv), probably cast form a model by Algardi after Bernini, and the free copies of Berini's lost bust of Charles I (viii, ix, xiii). The Hewer surely conveys as much of the sprit of Bernini's original as do these busts.

^{page 258 note 1} See Allacci, L., Vita della Venerabile Serva di Dio Maria Raggi da Scio del Terzo Ordine d. S. Domenico (Rome, 1655)Google Scholar. Maria Raggi was born in 1552 on the island of Scio, then held by the Genoese but lost to the Turks in 1594. She was a mystic and evidently regarded as a saint, for healing was believed to have resulted from the application of pieces of her clothing (p. 108). She died 7th January 1600 and was buried in the chapel of the Magdalene at S. Maria sopra Minerva, in a sarcophagus forming part of a mural monument with inscription (pp. 107–8). At the end of his work Allacci gives a list of other writers of Maria's life which includes Juan Pedro de Saragossa whose work, written in Spanish, was published in 1604. A Latin translation, Vita Beatae Mariae Raggiae, by Arnold de Raisse, published at Douai in 1622, has an engraved frontispiece, a half-length portrait of the lady in her habit, with a crown of thorns, her eyes cast upwards, and holding a plain cross in her right hand. This is a typical portrayal of a female mystic but, as it is set in an oval frame resting on an inscription tablet, it is in the form of a mural monument and strikes one as a foreshadowing of Bernini's memorial.

^{page 258 note 2} The Raggi monument is described as ‘Life-size relief portrait and putti, gilt bronze, before a black marble drapery with yellow border … S. Maria sopra Minerva, on the sixth pillar of the left aisle, Rome’ (Wittkower, , op. cit., p. 212Google Scholar, pl. 68, 70). The inscription indicates that the monument was erected by the Marchese Tommaso, the brother, and Lorenzo, the nephew of Cardinal Ottaviano Raggi, in 1643 (Allacci, , op. cit., p. 117)Google Scholar. The arms–Azure, a lion rampant or, crowned or, over all a bend gules (Riestap, J. B., Armorial General, Tome 11 (1887), p. 517Google Scholar; Libroa d'Oro della Nobilità Italiana (1966), p. 1250)Google Scholar—must refer to Ottaviano, created cardinal in 1641 and died in 1643 (Migne, L'Abbé, Dictionnaire des Cardinaux (Paris, 1857)Google Scholar, column 1439). Lorenzo was not created cardinal till 1647 ibid.). The over-all dimensions of the Hewer memorial, which is entirely of white marble, are 9 ft. 8 in. high × 5 ft. 2 in wide. The single design of the Raggi and Hewer memorials is varied in several details. The Raggi medallion has a frame ornamented with acanthus and the pose of the lady is ecstatic, with both hands pressed to her breast. The Hewer portrait, also life-size, is based on Sir Godfrey Kneller's drawing or painting (see p. 260, n. 3) and is framed by a plain moulding. There are two shields, one in each of the lower corners of the Hewer memorial: dexter bearing the Hewer arms, sinister the Hewer crest which, more correctly, should have been placed over the arms. The most drastic alteration to the original design is the replacement of the cross by an anchor.

^{page 259 note 1} Panofsky, E., Tomb Sculpture (1964), p. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 2} Wittkower, R., Art and Architecture in Italy 1600–1730 (revised edition, 1965), p. 99.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 3} Wittkower, R., Gian Lorenzo Bernini, p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 4} In both the Valtrini and Merenda designs, however, Death is seen as a messenger of God, commemorating and immortalizing the deceased, The image and the epitaph are presented to the spectator as they are borne heavenwards. The threatening aspect of Death is stressed in a sketch for a memorial to a cardinal (British Museum Department of Prints and Drawings 1913–3–31–177) which is obviously closely connected with the Valtrini and Raggi designs. Here, against an inscribed and violently twisted drapery, fixed by a cross at the top, a skeleton and a putto seem to struggle to gain possession of the portrait-medallion, the putto flying above and the winged skeleton trying to pull down the picture from below. A very fine engraving of this drawing by Basire, dated 1763 and described as a study for a portrait of a cardinal, ‘Cav. G. L. Bernino delt. In the Collection of Mr. Thos. Hudson, Painter’, was published by Rogers, C., A Collection of Prints in Imitation of Drawings from … Celebrated Masters (1778), p. 18Google Scholar.

^{page 259 note 5} Hibbard, H., Bernini (1965), p. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 1} Wittkower, R., Gian Lorenzo Bernini, pp. 33, 212.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 2} Pevsner, N., London (except the Cities of London and Westminster) (1952), p. 434.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 3} Sir Godfrey Kneller drew and painted Hewer c. 1685 as a relatively young man, apparently wearing his own hair, but the sculptor, thirty or more years later, seems to have intended to indicate a wig by slightly thickening the curls. The drawing (2979: 127 f.) is recorded by Charrington, J., A Catalogue of the Engraved Portraits in the Library of Samuel Pepys (1936), p. 80Google Scholar and reproduced by Turner, F. McD. C., The Pepys Library (1950), p. 15Google Scholar; the painting is at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich (31–4).

^{page 261 note 1} Motifs as Christian as the cross, but perhaps less obviously so, were widely used, especially on funeral monuments. Is it not therefore possible to see this anchor in two aspects? Firstly, it is an obvious reference to the deceased's profession; secondly, it is a symbol of his Christian faith. In the mystical interpretation, instead of a symbol of weight and fixture, the anchor becomes an emblem of Hope, carrying up or supporting the drapery with the inscribed record of Hewer's merits. What Hewer and his associates may have seen in the anchor other than a naval emblem can only be a matter for speculation but, during an important episode in his career, he must have been in close contact with Thomas Ken, later the non-juring bishop of Bath and Wells, who used as a seal the anchor as a veiled image of the cross, foundation of Christian Hope, the stem and cross-bar of which formed a crucifix. In 1683–4 Hewer accompanied Pepys on the expedition to Tangier when it was decided to destroy the mole there and evacuate the town. Hewer, Pepys as secretary and Ken as chaplain to the commander, Lord Dartmouth, were on the same ship for much of the journey there and back. It was not till after the fleet's return that Ken received the signet-ring, given to him by the family of his old friend Isaac Walton, who died while Ken was on the expedition. John Donne had left this ring to Walton and Ken was to wear and use it during the remainder of his life (Plumtree, E. H., The Life of Thomas Ken 1890) i, 170–1Google Scholar). We have no indication whether Ken expressed views on such symbols during the expedition but, from Pepys'smany references to discussions with Ken, we know that he had the opportunity to do so. (Letters and the Second Diary of Samuel Pepys, edited by Howarth, R. G. (1932), pp. ix, 379 et seqGoogle Scholar.) One factor certainly common to all three men was their fidelity to the house of Stuart and they were all forced into retirement by the Revolution of 1688.

Instances of the attractiveness of positively ‘popish’ objects to some English Protestants of the time are found in Lely's portraits of the Countess of Castlemaine as the Madonna, St. Catherine, and the Repentant Magdalene and, nearer to oursubject, Hales's portrait of Mrs. Pepys as St. Catherine, following the fashion set by the Catholic queen, Catherine of Braganza. These are, of course, only portraits of people posing but there was also the serious acceptance of the pelican ‘in her piety’ as a eucharistic symbol and it was placed in many of the churches in the City of London when they were rebuilt after the Great Fire.

^{page 261 note 2} The younger Nicholas Stone's Diary, Walpolc Soc. vii (1918-1919), 170–1Google Scholar, quoted by Pope-Hennessy, John, Catalogue of Italian Sculpture in the Victoria and Albert Museum, ii (1964), p. 602Google Scholar.

^{page 261 note 3} Wren, C., Parentalia (1750), pp. 261, 262.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 1} Richardson, J., An Account of Some of the Statues, Bas-reliefs, Drawings and Pictures in Italy, etc. (1722), p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 2} Wittkower, R., Gian Lorenzo Bernini, p. 220.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 3} S. Sitwell in the Introduction to Esdaile, K., English Church Monuments 1510 to 1840 (1946), p. 33Google Scholar.

^{page 262 note 4} Perhaps by Arnold Quellin; see Whinney, M., Sculpture in Britain 1530–1830 (1964), pp. 58–9Google Scholar and plate 44.

^{page 262 note 5} In Rome, on the other hand, as late as c. 1772 a great sweeping drapery, full of movement, is the principal element in a monument to a lady of the Odescalchi family at S. Maria del Popolo. In this instance the drapery, which carries the inscription, is hung on the branches of an oak tree and, against the upper part, the portrait-medallion of the lady is shown being drawn up on a cord held by two putti who fly towards the Odescalchi eagle at the top. The other family devices, a lion and thurible, stand on the rocky base of the monument. Berenson was amazed that such a masterpiece ‘had been done so late, only just before the collapse into the ‘art nouveau’ which we know as “Empire”’ (Berenson, B., The Passionate Sightseer (1960), p. 28, pl. 12)Google Scholar.

^{page 263 note 1} Letters from Cheyne's agent in Rome, quoted by Davies, R., Chelsea Old Church (1904), pp. 57–65Google Scholar. Antonio Raggi may just possibly have carried out the large models for the memorial to Maria Raggi, and his Bragadin monument (c. 1658) in S. Marco, Rome, is a variation of that to Maria Raggi (Wittkower, R., Gian Lorenzo Bernini, p. 212Google Scholar).

^{page 263 note 2} See Stewart, J. D., ‘Some Unrecorded Gibbons Monuments’, Burlington Magazine, cv (1963), 125–6.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 3} Whinney, M., op. cit., p. 77.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 4} Ibid., p. 70.

^{page 264 note 1} Hewer is frequently mentioned in Pepys's diary and a summary of his character and association with Pepys with references to his house at Clapham, are given by Norman, P., ‘Pepys and Hewer’, Occasional Papers for Members of the Samuel Pepys Club, ii (1925), 53–77Google Scholar. The arms on the monument (sable, two talbots' heads erased, in pale, or between two flaunches ermine) evidently indicate descent from Hewer of Oxborough, Norfolk. There are no traces of colour now but the tinctures are given by Lysons, D., The Environs of London (1792), i, p. 365Google Scholar, n. 26; and Manning, O. and Bray, W., The History and Antiquities of Surrey (1814), iii, p. 365Google Scholar. Perhaps the tinctures of the crest, on the sinister shield, may also be given as borne by Hewer of Oxborough in Visitations of Norfolk 1563, 1589 and 1613, edited by Rye, W. (Harleian Society, xxxii (1891), 150Google Scholar: a demi-dragon azure, wings addorsed or, collared and lined or, holding the line in his forelegs.

^{page 264 note 2} Calendar of Treasury Books 1676–79 (H.M.S.O., 1911), p. 1227.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 3} Calendar of Treasury Papers 1556–1696 (prepared by Redington, J., 1868), p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 4} Calendar of Treasury Booh 1681–85 (H.M.S.O., 1916), pp. 20Google Scholar, 25; and 1685–9 (H.M.S.O., 1923), p. 80.

^{page 264 note 5} Pope-Hennessy, John, Introduction to the Raphael Cartoons (Victoria and Albert Museum Colour Book No. 1, 1966) P. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 6} The Diary of John Evelyn, edited by de Beer, E. S. (1955), v, III.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 1} Turner, F. McD. C., op. cit., p. 18Google Scholar. A number of Pepys's manuscripts appear to have remained in York Buildings, Buckingham Street, Strand (where Pepys lived for some years) and were eventually obtained by Dr. Rawlinson who gave them to the Bodleian Library, Oxford. (The Diary of Samuel Pepys, with Lord Braybrooke's Notes, edited by Wheatley, H. B. (1924), i, pp. liv–lv.)Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 2} de Beer, E. S., op. cit., v, 427.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 3} Turner, F. McD. C., op. cit., p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 4} Smith, E. E. F., ‘Pepys's Favourite Nephew’, Occasional Sheets for Members of the Clapham Antiquarian Society, no. 222 (July 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 5} Aubrey, J., Natural History and Antiquities of Surrey, v (1719), 331.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 6} Manning, O. and Bray, W. (loc. cit.Google Scholar) transcribe the whole inscription except the word ‘humanus’, in the thirty-ninth line, and this omission suggests that the inscription was perhaps difficult to read even before the monument had suffered (as it was to do) from exposure to the elements and while it was fixed quite low down on the north wall of the nave of the old church. The version given below is taken from the monument as it is today and, although the style of the lettering looks early eighteenth century, one wonders if the peculiar spelling, not in Manning and Bray's version, is due to some recutting when the monument was restored in 1886 (see p. 266, n. 4):

H.S.E./Gueielmus Hewer de Clapham/ Armiger/ Filius Thomae Hewer/ Londinensis/ Natus Londini Nov. 17/ 1642/ Regibus/ Carolo et Jacobo 2. dis/ A faustissimo utriusque in patriam reditu, 1660,/ Ad infelicum alterius ab Anglia discessum, 1688,/ Servus diligens fidelis dilectus,/ Qui multa et perquam difficilia obivit munera/ Obeundis Omnibus per,/ De Tingitani Propugaculi conservatione/ Quamdiu illud conservari voluit Rex optimus/ De eodem tandem dirvendo,/ Cum id videbatur maxime expedire,/ Probe curavit Publici Aeris Administer/ Eorum quae ad Maritima spectarent Negotia/ Ita gnarus erat, et expertus;/ Ut inter Classis Regiae Curatores et Praepositos/ Optimo juro conscrib-eretur/ In iis quae Commercio promovendo inservirent,/ Ita perspicax erat et indefessus;/ Ut Mercaturae ed Indos Orientales,/ Una cum viris in re Mercatoria primariis/ Multoties praeficeretur,/ In singulis quae ubique loci gessit Officii/ Id potissimum sibi proposuit,/ Ut Principis honori et Patriae emolumento/ Iugiter consuleret./ Ecclesiae Anglicanae Institutis et Disciplinae/ Per universum vitae Cursum/ Firmiter et tenaciter adhaesit/ In Deo colendo sine fuco assiduis,/ In Pauperibus Sublevandis sine Ostentatione beneficus,/ In Amicis et convivis excipiendis/ Facilis, humanus, et sine luxu hospitalis/ Ad Annos tres ultra septuagesimum vitam duxit/ Innocentem, utilem, Coelibem,/ Mortigue pie succubuit Dec. 3. 1715.

On the lower border of the drapery:

Hewer Edgley Hewer Armiger Quern Vir laudatus Sanguine sibi conjunctum/ Filii loco habuit. Et Haeredem et Testimento reliquit, Monumentum hoc/ Exiguum gratitudinis suae Indicium Posuit.

^{page 266 note 1} Private Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, edited by Tanner, J. R. (1926), pp. xvi–xviiGoogle Scholar. Among the many engravings of Roman art and architecture published by G. G. Rossi (Rubeis) and collected by Pepys, are several of works by Bernini.

^{page 266 note 2} Allacci, L. (op. cit., p. 117Google Scholar) gives a description of the lady's monument; and a drawing for it, from the school of Bernini, less asymmetrical than as executed, is at Palazzo Chigi, Ariccia (Braur, H. and Wittkower, R., Die Zeichnungen des Gianlorenzo Bernini (1931), text p. 36Google Scholar, Tafel 530).

^{page 266 note 3} Sir Musgrave, W., Obituary prior to 1800, edited by Sir Armytage, G. J., vol. iii (Harleian Society, xlvi (1900)), p. 205.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 4} Hewer's will (P.C.C. Fagg 238) does not refer to a monument but requires only ‘to be devoutly buryed in the vault which I have built and prepared in the parish church of Clapham’. Robert Black-burn, Secretary to the Admiralty from 1652 to 1660 and uncle to Hewer, died in 1701 and was buried 21st June beside his wife ‘in Mr. Hewer's vault’ (Occasional Sheets for Members of the Clapham Antiquarian Society, no. 133, February 1959)Google Scholar. This vault seems to have been on the north side of the church (Howlett, Bartholomew in Gentleman's Magazine, 1815, pt. II, p. 490Google Scholar) and in April 1716 notice was given of Hewer Edgely Hewer's intention to widen the north aisle (Winchester Muniment Book 1708–1720, f. 103Google Scholar, Greater London Record Office, County Hall). The monument was placed half-way along the new north wall, between two windows. The old church of the Holy Trinity ceased to be parochial in 1776, when the new church was built on Clapham Common, and all except the north chapel and Hewer's aisle was demolished. These survived until 1815 when the new St. Paul's chapel (later Church) was built on the site. The monument was then placed on the outside east wall (as shown in an engraving of the new chapel published by Bartholomew Howlett, Brew House Buildings, Clapham, November 1816; and in Cracklow, C. T., Views of the Churches and Chapels of Ease in the County of Surrey, 1827)Google Scholar. By the middle of the century it is stated to have been on ‘the exterior south wall’ with the inscription ‘now scarcely to be read’ (Brayley, E. W., Topographical History of Surrey, vol. iii, c. 1845, p. 281Google Scholar) and in the 1880s it was ‘exposed to wind and weather on the outer north wall’! (Grover, J. W., Old Clapham, 1887, pp. 20Google Scholar, 117, 118). It was restored in 1886, by A. Yeatman & Co. of West Norwood (as stated in a painted inscription under the drapery at bottom left) and re-erected inside the church. In January 1970, during major alterations to the interior, the monument was cleaned and removed from the obscurity of the former vestry to the south-east corner of the nave, It was then possible to make a careful examination of the whole sculpture. It is formed from three large pieces of white marble, the joints (largely concealed by the folds in the drapery) run across, above the medallion and the heads of the putti; and down, passing through the wing of the right-hand putto and to the left of the right-hand border and shield. A fourth piece of marble forms the cross-bar and top of the anchor. There is a stone corbel and this now rests on a new marble corbel. The marble (which varies from about 10 inches thick to probably not much more than 1 inch thick in the deepest folds of the drapery) is in good condition in spite of its many years’ exposure to the elements, but the toes of the putti are partly broken away.

^{page 267 note 1} Cf. Bird's use of a Kneller portrait within a medallion in the monument to William Congreve (d. 1729) at Westminster Abbey. His monument to Sir Orlando Gee (d. 1705) at Isleworth, Middle-sex, is evidently inspired by Bernini's Gabriele Fonseca in S. Lorenzo in Lucina, Rome. For the complexities of Italian Baroqueinfluence in England in the early eighteenth century see M. Whinney, op. cit., chapters 9, 10, and 11.