Picture of the Day

Here’s a lovely example of a portrait showing its age. This was on sale at auction last year, attributed to an unknown painter of the English School, and dated 1648.  The sitter is Vincent Denne (1628-1693),  “One of the ancient Dennes of Kent, forefather of Septimus Pennington”. He was a Member of Parliament in 1654 and from 1681 to 1685. I’ve not heard of  him before, but the auction website gives a good biographical history of Vincent and his family.

Vincent Denne

Although in need of a good clean but apparently ‘cleverly restored’ in 1906, I like that this is dirty and a bit worse for wear. His face shows a lot of life lived, and so does his portrait!

 

**Ed’s Note:  A reader has spotted that if Vincent were born in 1628, he should be about 12 years old here!! Further research has also found a will written in 1722, confusing matters further. Any thoughts? Perhaps the sitter is actually Vincent’s father…?

 

* http://www.the-saleroom.com/it-it/auction-catalogues/cheffinsfineart/catalogue-id-srche10064/lot-b62bae4d-fa3b-4f1f-b759-a4ae0106d61f

 

Advertisements
Previous Post
Leave a comment

10 Comments

  1. Hang on – that’s a portrait of a twenty-year-old? I don’t believe it.

    Like

    Reply
  2. I think there’s some serious misidentification going on here. The Wikipedia article has a portrait they claim is him in 1640. It’s a middle-aged man – but if the 1628 birthdate is close, he was twelve.

    Like

    Reply
    • Yes, I spotted there was something odd too…I’ve just done a dig for info on Vincent, and found a will that must be his but dated 1722! So either the biog dates are wrong, or the sitter is. Perhaps they’ve mistaken him for his father?

      Like

      Reply
      • I’d be betting it’s his father, if the picture was in the family, or maybe just mislabeled completely at some time. No way is that a man born in 1628.

        Like

    • The two pictures also have the sitter wearing exactly the same clothing – one looks like a copy of the other. The Wikipedia picture is elsewhere identified as being by Cornelius Janssens van Ceulen in 1640, but it appears to be of a different Vincent Denne, one who died in 1642. https://the1642goodwyfe.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/vincent-denne/

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Curiouser and curiouser! So who is the other Vincent Denne? Our man’s father was apparently a Thomas, so it can’t be him. I think we need to track down a family tree…..

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ooh that’s a good website.

        Like

  3. I’m guessing it’s the Vincent Denne, gent, who was given Wenderton by Charles I. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol9/pp224-241 The article says he had four nieces, the last of whom married the VIncent Denne (a cousin?) who became an MP and died in 1693. There’s some info here too: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=68701960

    Like

    Reply
    • That must be him. So if the British History page is correct, the Vincent Denne originally thought to be the sitter was actually married to the niece of an older Vincent Denne, who is the man in the picture…..?

      Like

      Reply
  4. I’m chuffed this information is out there. Now a few more salerooms, encyclopaedia pages and so on need to pay attention …

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: