Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:27:26.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

SENSIBILITY AND GENEALOGY IN THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FAMILY PORTRAIT: THE COLLECTION AT KEDLESTON HALL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2003

KATE RETFORD
Affiliation:
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge

Abstract

This article analyses Nathaniel Hone's portrait of Lord and Lady Scarsdale (1761) and the significance that such images have for our understanding of the eighteenth-century family. It first discusses the imagery of the painting and places it in the context of the shift that occurred in family portraiture between 1740 and 1760. Whilst earlier images presented stiffly posed figures, later portraits such as that by Hone came to focus on the sitters' affective relationships. The article argues that, whilst aesthetic influences played a part in this transition, it was chiefly prompted by the sentimentalization of familial ideals. Such ‘promenade portraits’ encapsulated the companionate marriage, hailed as a blend of masculine rationality and feminine tenderness. However, once contextualized within the state rooms for which it was conceived, the Hone portrait also reveals more ‘traditional’ concerns. It makes formal references to accompanying portraits of Stuart monarchs and dignitaries, emphasizing the tory affiliations of the Scarsdales and their loyalty to the Stuart dynasty. The state rooms also contain a portrait of Lord Scarsdale as a baby with his parents and his deceased elder brother. This image affirms the continuation of the male line in the face of high infant mortality rates, a statement that is confirmed in the Hone painting.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank the family and population history seminar at Cambridge University, the centre for eighteenth-century studies seminar at York University, the history of design seminar at the V&A, Peter de Bolla and the two readers for the Historical Journal for their comments on earlier versions of this article.