[Victorian Web Home —> Visual Arts —> Sculpture —> Sir W. Hamo Thornycroft — Next]

Article accompanying the illustration

These statues are two of the series in course of execution, pursuant to the recommendation of the Fire-Art Commissioners, for the decoration of the Royal Gallery of the Westminster Palace — the stately gallery (the largest apartment in the palace) which contains in the two central bays the two great pictures” by Mr. Maclise, “The Meeting of Wellington and Blucher at Waterloo” and “The Death of Nelson.” Through this gallery the Queen, or her deputy, passes at the opening and closing of Parliament to and from the robing-room and the House of Lords. Originally, it was intended that the niches of the pillars which divide the bays of the gallery should be filled with comparatively small Gothic stone figures. It was afterwards, however, decided” by the Fine-Arts Commissioners that a series of marble statues of the Sovereigns of England from Saxon times would be a more appropriate decoration and it was further recommended that the statues should be of heroic or colossal size (in this instance about 9 ft. high) as more suitable to the scale of the gallery. This alteration involves the necessity of removing the niches designed by the architect of the building, and replacing them with others of considerably larger dimensions. When the plan of the Commissioners became known, much discussion arose respecting the omission, from the so-called “historical” list of English rulers, of one of the most powerful both at home and abroad — Cromwell. But we believe the question “Shall Cromwell have a statue?” has not yet been answered in the affirmative. From the few commissions given, and the consequent slow rate at which the proposed decorations proceed, it might be supposed that plenty of time remains for arguing this question further. We apprehend, however, that this will not prove to be the case; for Mr. Thornycroft’s first Charles will shortly be erected, and Mr. Weekes has been commissioned to execute a statue of the second Charles, and has made considerable progress with the model.

Mr. Thornycroft has represented James I. as holding the sceptre in one hand, and in the other hand a copy of our authorised translation of the Bible, which was executed in his reign, and dedicated “to the most high and mighty Prince James,” by the grace of God King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.” For the likeness the sculptor has, we believe, consulted the portraits” by Mytens and others. Painting certainly records the appearance of James more favourably than history. And greater licence must be accorded to the sculptor than even to the painter. Yet, as it is well known that James’s person was naturally feeble, particularly in the limbs, which were scarcely sufficiently strong to support his weight, we think that, after making every allowance, it may fairly be questioned whether the figure of this statue is not too robust, the mien too imposing.

In the statue of Charles I. we do not perceive any very marked departure from the no doubt highly flattering portraits” by Vandyke; and the attitude chosen is strikingly suggestive. The King is represented, sad and meditative, hugging to his breast with both hands the sceptre, symbol of his regal authority, which he is to lose — clinging, as it were, in the last extremity to the “right divine to govern wrong.”

Bibliography

“Statues of James I and Charles I.” Illustrated London News 50 (19 June 1867): 648. Hathi Trust Digital Library version of a copy in the University of Michigan Library. Web. 15 December 2015.

---

Victorian
Web

Visual
Arts

Sculpture

W. Hamo
Thornycroft

Next

Last modified 16 December 2015