A Study in Power and Beauty
In the third of a series of posts about horses in art, I
look at one of the most famous paintings of all. The first two posts, Copenhagen and Marengo appeared on Victoria Hinshaw's blog and Téa Cooper’s blog
(links below). I will post them here nearer to 18 June and the anniversary of
the Battle of Waterloo.
Whistlejacket 1762
was painted by George Stubbs and hangs in the National Gallery. An oil on
canvas, it measures an enormous 115 x 97 inches (9’7” x 8’1”, 292 x 246 cm).
Thus it is almost life-sized.
 |
| Whistlejacket by George Stubbs, courtesy of Wikipedia |
George Stubbs is probably the finest equestrian artist of
the Georgian age, if not all time. Certainly, no other of his era matched his
understanding of a horse’s anatomy and physiology. Born in 1724, the son of a
currier, he began his artistic life as a portrait painter, but having had a
fascination for the subject since childhood, studied human anatomy at York
County hospital. In 1758, he rented a farm in Lincolnshire and spent several
months studying the physiology of horses through the simple expedient of
dissecting carcasses. He also suspended them in different poses in order to
draw them. This dedicated work resulted in The
Anatomy of the Horse, published in 1766.
Stubbs accepted an invitation from Charles Watson Wentworth,
the 2nd Marquis of Rockingham, to visit his estate at Wentworth
Woodhouse in Yorkshire. He stayed some considerable time at Wentworth House and
produced several paintings. Indeed, Whistlejacket himself features in a
frieze-like work on a similar neutral background, entitled Whistlejacket with the Head Groom Mr. Cobb and the Two Other Principal
Stallions in the Wentworth Stud, the Godolphin Hunter and the Godolphin Colt.
Bred at Belsay Castle, Northumberland by Sir William
Middleton, Whistlejacket was a Thoroughbred and as such, entered in that
Almanac of the Turf, The General Stud
Book. He was foaled in 1749, to a Sweepstakes Mare (this means the mare was
an unnamed daughter of Sweepstakes). The mare’s entry in the GSB reads as
follows:
Foaled in 1736, her dam by the Hampton Court Ch. [Chestnut] Arabian—Makeless—Brimmer—Place's
White Turk—Dodsworth—Layton Barb Mare*
f by Hutton's Spot (dam of Mayduke)
1749 ch. c.
Whistlejacket, by Mogul ....... Sir W. Middleton
*In his Turf Register, William Pick names her as ‘Mr. Layton’s Violet Barb Mare, which was
a brood mare in Lord D’Arcy’s Stud’.
Through his dam,
therefore, Whistlejacket’s bloodlines trace back to the Royal Stud and the
famous ‘royal mares’ imported by Charles II. His sire Mogul was by the
Godolphin Arabian, one of the three founding sires of the Thoroughbred breed.
The modern phrase ‘bred in the purple’ was never more applicable and that
hallowed pedigree shows in George Stubbs’ glorious painting.
Named for a cold remedy
of the time – made from gin and treacle – Whistlejacket had a successful career
on the racecourse, losing only four times, according to William Pick. He raced
from the age of three, winning consistently in the North of England at such
meetings as Morpeth, Newcastle, Stockton, York and Lincoln, whilst receiving
some narrow defeats in the south. His first defeat was to Mr. Curzon’s Jason,
in the King’s Plate at Newmarket in 1755, but he was revenged the following
year. After losing a close finish to Spectator, a horse belonging to the Duke
of Ancaster, in Newmarket’s Jockey Club Plate in 1756, he was sold to Lord Rockingham.
His most famous victory came against a strong field over four miles, at York in
1759, when, carrying an equal weight of nine stone with his adversary, he beat
Mr. Turner’s Brutus to claim the 2000 guineas prize. It was his final outing
and, noted William Pick, ‘…a remarkable
fine race; being strongly contested the whole four miles, and won by a length
only. Whistlejacket was rode by John Singleton, and Brutus by Thomas Jackson,
who both displayed their utmost skill in riding…’ Whistlejacket was retired
to stud, where it appears he was not particularly successful, yet because of
this portrait, he is probably better known to the general populace than either
his sire or grandsire.
It is a popular belief
that Whistlejacket was chosen to be portrayed in such a fashion because he was
a beautiful example of the so-called Eastern or Oriental horse, viz. the
Arabian or Barb. The Marquis of Rockingham loved to collect fine art and
statuary; he was well travelled and extremely rich. It is often stated that the
portrait was intended to be of King George III, with Stubbs painting the horse,
the foremost portrait artist painting the King and the foremost landscape
artist painting the background. It is said that this picture was to be a
companion to the one of King George II commissioned by the Marquis’ father.
Whether or not this was Rockingham’s intention, we will never know, but if so,
it could well be, that on seeing the emergence of his horse from the skilful
brush of George Stubbs, Rockingham changed his mind. It has also been suggested,
that being a Whig and in opposition to the throne, Rockingham had political
reasons for the change of heart – or even that he was making an uncomplimentary
political statement… that Whistlejacket, depicted free of all restraint, and
therefore the complete opposite of the normal, subservient role shown by the
horse in portraits of the time, was an allegory for the Whig liberalistic
viewpoint against the Hanoverian rule. Indeed, it is possible the story of the
King’s portrait may well have originated with Horace Walpole.
While travelling in
Yorkshire, he visited Wentworth Woodhouse in August 1772 and wrote:
‘Many pictures of horses by Stubbs, well done. One large as life, fine,
no ground done; it was to have had a figure of George III until Lord Rockingham
went into opposition.’
However that might be,
the painting and its subject have become icons. On the National Gallery web
site, one can buy fridge magnets, posters and all manner of other items emblazoned
with this fabulous image. Whistlejacket is shown as a perfect example of the
Arabian breed. A rich chestnut with flaxen mane and tail, believed by many to
be the colour of the first feral horses in Arabia, he has the classic ‘dished’
face, his head refined with dainty ears and wide nostrils, the better for
inhaling at speed. His neck is arched with the powerful muscles of the stallion
and beautifully set on to his body; his back is short, for strength and his
hindquarters are shapely and strong. His forequarters are upraised in the
classic pesade or levade (the latter not known in Stubbs’
time, since it was introduced at the start of the twentieth century),
demonstrating his long, sloping shoulder (necessary for a smooth gait and
therefore ride). He has a deep, broad chest; clean, hard legs and short gaskins
(the part of the hind leg above the right-angled joint), which are essential
for speed and endurance.
Whistlejacket is
depicted as a wild, free spirit, in an age when horses were merely a tool to
magnify the heroic qualities and skill of the rider – often with harsh bits and
an iron hand to create the illusion. It was this anomaly which led to the
belief that the painting was unfinished, but the neat shadows from his hind
feet rather suggest this to be wrong. There is a glint in his eye and an air of
majesty which, captured so cleverly by Stubbs, infers only the most
accomplished horseman would be able to ride this horse. He had a quick temper
to match his fiery-coloured coat and the story goes that he tried to attack his
portrait one day when George Stubbs leaned it against the stable wall to view
it at a distance. Horses do not normally ‘see’ two-dimensional objects; that
Whistlejacket recognized the image of himself as another stallion reveals not
only his intelligence, but also his supreme confidence. He was in his prime and
knew himself superior to other beings.
It is a portrait which
captures the imagination. The observer can revel in the sheer beauty of a horse
in its natural state, free and unfettered, with mane and tail flowing loose and
untrimmed; the power and grace exhibited without the usual (for the time)
trappings of subservience. Whistlejacket is permitted to show his personality –
which he does with abundance. The fact that there is no background makes it
clear Stubbs and/or the Marquis of Rockingham intended for him to be admired. It
is obvious to an informed eye that he is not wild – his gleaming, velvety soft coat
and silky tail are the result of being stabled and hours of grooming – and of
course a horse’s usefulness to man would be nothing were he not tamed and
docile, yet all horsemen revere that element of unpredictability. It is what
makes horses so special – that they will willingly allow us to serve them.
Links to Copenhagen and Marengo
Very informative. I am not a horse person but must admit that Stubbs excelled at showing the beauty and power of horses. I was interested in the reference to D'arcy family which reminded me I meant to look up their equestrian history. I haven't seen much written about the families connected with horse breeding except for the connection of Noel Wentworth. The peopel who follow horses are often more obsessed with the stud book than humans are with their own genealogy.
ReplyDeleteI am pleased you found the article interesting. The Whistlejacket portrait is one of the most popular paintings at the National Gallery and I am sure it is because you don't have to be knowledgeable about horses to appreciate both the artistic skill and the unsurpassed grace and majesty of the equine form. It is that study of bloodlines which has resulted in the Georgian masterpiece that is the Thoroughbred, as well as, in our own time, such glorious exponents of equine athleticism as dressage superhorse Valegro.
DeleteI do some walking past Wentworth Woodhouse where Stubbs did the famous painting of Whistlejacket. As I go past the entrance to what would have been the stables (Rockingham Stud then) the hair on my neck stands on end as my mind goes back to the 1700's
ReplyDeleteThe original Wentworth Woodhouse (re built in the 1700's) was the home of Thomas Wentworth the 1st Earl of Strafford who was chief adviser to King Charles 1st but was executed in 1641. A fascinating place for those who enjoy history.
How interesting. Thank you for taking the trouble to comment. Perhaps Whistlejacket's spirit lingers yet in his old home... or maybe it is that 1st Earl who still guards his property from the Parliamentarians!
DeleteWhen the Marquees of Rockingham died & the house was sold there was no mention of Whistlejacket so the horse probably died at the Wentworth Stud.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to find out. They were not, in general, given to sentimentalism over horses as we are today. A record of his death would not necessarily have been kept. However, there is a story in that. Perhaps, one day, I shall write it! It is rather nice to imagine his ghostly form still parading around his paddocks... but then, I write romantic fiction.
DeleteStubbs renting a remote farmhouse so the stench from the dissected horses wouldn't be too bad for neighbors paid off for him in the end.
ReplyDeleteA prosaic way of looking at it, but true. His method of learning the structure of the horse was practical and unemotional, yet it made him one of the greatest - arguably the greatest - equestrian artist the world has seen.
DeleteUntil I came across Whistlejacket I was never a Stubbs fan. For horses, working type especially, I always look for George Morland.
ReplyDeleteWhat you have to remember is that George Morland was a century later. The understanding of anatomy and physiology had moved on, as had artistic techniques. He and his contemporaries learned from Stubbs, John Wootton, James Seymour etc.. Stubbs paved the way for others to follow, especially in his portrayal of equine movement. In the main, before him, the horse was merely a tool to make the human subject look impressive.
DeleteMorland died 1804 and Stubbs two years later. Once Morland left his father he took not the slightest interest in the works of other painters lest he became an imitator.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies. It just shows the importance of checking your facts! I had it in my head he was painting around 1840 for some reason. I agree he was a fine exponent of the type of farm horse as depicted in 'The Reckoning', yet he was not born until 1763 so the chances are he was influenced by the artists of his day as he was growing up whether he intended to be or not - just as we are influenced today by outside forces such as media and trends. Both were extremely fine artists in their respective fields, so to speak, and we are exceptionally lucky to have their work to appreciate.
Delete