Previously covered in crude later overpaint, this painting was considered for much of the last century to be a studio variant of the famous full-length portrait of Strafford with his hound in the Fitzwilliam collects ion (Millar, IV.214, fig. 1). Recent restoration, however, has revealed the full power of Van Dyck’s original brushwork and the painting is now unanimously accepted by the leading scholars in the field as being an autograph work by the artist himself, which probably predates the Fitzwilliam portrait. Numerous pent.mes nti, revealed following the removal of the later overpaint, demonstrate changes made to the composition by the artist during the painting’s creation, such as the position of the baton, adjustments to the helmet and the armour at the right, as well as to the hair and collar. When the painting was exhibited at the British Institution in 1864 it was lavishly praised by the press, the correspondent for The t.mes s writing: “The palm of interest in portraiture this year must be awarded to Vandyck’s stately Strafford,… This is indeed the complete presentment of a powerful individuality, done without affectation or effort, yet with consummate conscientiousness, as if the courtly and pleasure-loving painter had been for the while both sobered and dignified by the character of his sitter”. ¹

First recorded at Oulton Park, seat of the Egerton family, in 1732, it is possible that this portrait was originally owned by Sir Roland Egerton, 1^st Bt., either having been painted for him or acquired by him following Strafford’s execution in May 1641. Descended from an ancient family that had settled in Cheshire in the eleventh century, Egerton was Member of Parliament for Wotton Bassett and a great supporter of the Royalist cause during the Civil Wars. His wife, Bridget, was the daughter of Arthur, 13^th Baron Grey de Wilton (1536-1593), who had been one of Strafford’s predecessors as Lord Deputy of Ireland. Destroyed by fire in 1929 and later bombed in 1940, in its heyday Oulton, near Tarporley in Cheshire, was a substantial Baroque mansion designed by Vanburgh (fig. 2), with the later additions of gardens laid out by William Emes.

Befitting of a patron of such power and influence, Van Dyck painted a number of portraits of Strafford at the height of his career in the late 1630s. The composition best known from the famous Fitzwilliam full length of the Earl with his hound, which relates most closely to the present work and is probably based on the same sittings, is the earliest of these. The full-length portrait is first securely referred to in letters by the sitter written in late June 1636.

However, the composition of the Fitzwilliam full length and the present painting vary substantially. In the present work, Strafford holds the baton in his right hand, his left arm rests on his sword, and he is depicted against a richly painted red curtain with his helmet positioned at the right. In the full length he rests his right hand on the head of a dog, holds the baton in his left hand, and is depicted in an architectural setting with a landscape beyond and the helmet at the upper left.

Moreover, examination of the present work using infra-red photography (fig. 3), as well as the recent removal of later overpaint, reveal significant changes (pent.mes nti) made to the composition as the painting progressed. The most striking of these is the change in the position of Strafford’s right hand, together with the marshal’s baton that he holds, which have both been lowered by several inches. However, there are also significant changes down the contour of the sitter’s right arm and to the position of his left elbow, as well as the positioning of the lower body armor. The artist has also made adjustments to the position of Strafford’s left eye, in the hair and to his white collar.

These changes, made during the painting’s creation, together with the notable differences in the composition suggest that the present portrait is not only by the artist’s own hand but predates the Fitzwilliam painting; as too does the fact that Strafford’s hair line is lower and more youthful in the present work, and his countenance more aggressive and uncompromising. Perhaps most tellingly, however, the changes made here in the sitter’s collar are followed in the full length. A number of good studio versions of this three-quarter length portrait exist, which repeat the composition of the current lot, including that in the National Portrait Gallery, London (NPG 2960).

Van Dyck’s other depictions of Strafford include the three quarter length portrait in armor, facing right with a military encampment beyond at Petworth (Egremont collects ion, National Trust, fig. 4), for which Strafford sat at Eltham in the summer of 1636; and a full length variant of it, also by Van Dyck’s own hand, at Welbeck (Portland collects ion). As with the present three-quarter length and its full-length variant, here the artist has made several changes in the composition between the two versions; for example, moving the position of the helmet and altering the landscape background. A half-length portrait, also in armor but with the sitter seated behind a ledge, perhaps painted in late 1639 – early 1640, is at Euston (Duke of Grafton); and Van Dyck’s final portrait of Strafford, which was probably based on the same sitting, is the famous double portrait with his secretary Sir Philip Mainwaring (formerly at Wentworth Woodhouse, fig. 5), which is one of the artist’s most influential English pictures and is closely based on Titian’s Portrait of George d’Armagnac with Guillaume Philandrier (Northumberland collects ion, Alnwick Castle).

Described by Clarendon as ‘the greatest subject in power, and little inferior to any in fortune, that was at that t.mes in either of the three kingdoms’, the sitter in this magnificent portrait – the very model of stern martial authority – was one of the most important statesmen of the early seventeenth century; the force of his ‘proud gloaming countenance’ speaking to us from across the ages with undiminished force. The scion of an old Yorkshire family, Thomas Wentworth was the second and eldest surviving son of Sir William Wentworth of Wentworth Woodhouse, and his wife Anne, daughter of Sir Robert Atkinson of Stowell in Gloucestershire. Educated at St John's College, Cambridge and the Inner Temple, in 1611 he married Lady Margaret Clifford (d.1622), eldest daughter of the 4^th Earl of Cumberland and was knighted by King James I. After completing his education with a year's travel on the Continent, Wentworth returned to England in 1613 and the following year, having succeeded to the baronetcy on the death of his father, was elected to Parliament (the "Addled Parliament") for Yorkshire.

An opponent of the Duke of Buckingham, following the latter’s assassination in 1628 the King moved to secure Wentworth’s loyalty by elevating him to a viscountcy and appointing him Lord-President of the Council of the North. Wentworth dealt decisively with northern lords who opposed the King’s authority and quickly established himself as a competent and efficient administrator. In November 1629 he was appointed to the Privy Council and three years later he was appointed Lord-Deputy of Ireland. Together with his close ally Archbishop Laud, Wentworth was instrumental in developing the centralizing policy that managed the administration of both Church and State in Ireland during the period of King Charles' Personal Rule. With authoritarian efficiency he secured firm control of the army and dominated the main power groups by clever manipulation of the Irish Parliament; developing trade and industry; bringing in financial reforms to increase Ireland's revenue; and successfully suppressing the piracy that was rife around the Irish coast.

Wentworth’s single minded devotion to the King's interests were rewarded in 1639 when, with England's humiliating defeat at the hands of the Scots in the First Bishops' War, he was recalled to London as chief adviser to the King. In January 1640 he was elevated to the position of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and created Earl of Strafford. Now second only in his power to the King, Strafford’s coerced the Irish Parliament into granting sufficient funds to raise a new army for service against the Scottish Covenanters and convinced the King to summon a Parliament in England to raise further finance for war. However, though willing to grant subsidies, the Short Parliament would only do so on condition that their many grievances with Charles’s Personal Rule were addressed. Strafford changed tack and persuaded the King that an army could be raised in England by other means which, reinforced by troops from Ireland, would be enough to subdue the Scots. The King abruptly dissolved Parliament in May and sent troops north. In the event, Strafford’s swiftly mustered English army, untrained and badly disciplined, was easily defeated before the troops from Ireland could be deployed and with rapidly escalating costs and the need to maintain a standing army in the north, the King was forced to call the Long Parliament in November.

Strafford, now reviled by many as a tyrant, became a scapegoat for the nation's grievances. At the instigation of John Pym and other opposition MPs, one of the Long Parliament's first actions was to call for his impeachment. The case against Strafford hinged upon an accusation that he had treasonously advised the King that the Irish army could be used against his opponents in England as well as the Scots. Strafford's trial opened on 22 March 1641, with Pym leading the prosecution, though he defended himself so ably that his alleged treason could not be proved. When it looked as if he might be acquitted, Pym and his supporters resorted to a bill of attainder. After anguished hesitation, the King gave way to the clamor for Strafford's execution and gave his consent to the bill. Strafford was beheaded on Tower Hill on 12 May 1641.

The King's betrayal of Strafford remained on his conscience for the rest of his life, and he came to believe that his own sufferings during the Civil Wars were a just punishment from God for his sin in letting Strafford die. It was certainly a grave political mistake, since Strafford was the ablest and cleverest of all the King's advisers. The attainder against him was reversed after the Restoration, and his only son, William, succeeded as the second Earl of Strafford.

We are grateful to Dr Malcolm Rogers, Professor Christopher Brown and Dr. Susan Barnes for endorsing the attribution to Sir Anthony van Dyck following firsthand inspection of the painting. The painting is to be included in Dr. Barnes’ forthcoming addendum to the Catalogue Raisonné of the artist’s work.

¹ Quoted in Descriptive catalogue of the Pictures and other Works of Art at Oulton Park