In this exquisitely preserved early Jacobean miniature of
an unknown lady, court fashion meets sartorial fantasy.
[3] The standing open ruff and upswept hairstyle were
in vogue at court at this date, but here they are combined
with a daringly low neckline of a type normally associated
with masque costume. The honeysuckle – symbolic of
love and devotion – pinned to her ruff may indicate
betrothal and her exposed breasts suggest that this was
a very private portrait, intended only for the eyes of
her lover. This playful, erotised mode of depiction is
unusual for this period and is a pertinent reminder of
the uniqueness of this genre of portraiture.

 One of the most striking aspects of this portrait is the
abundance of jewellery and pearls. Pinned to the sitter’s hair
is a large table-cut diamond with an accompanying brooch
at her breast comprised of three further diamonds,
which were originally depicted using silver, now appear
black due to tarnishing over time. Around her neck, the
sitter flaunts a pearl necklace, similar to those observed
in several portraits from the period, from which six
rubies hang.[4] Loops of pearls, each with a suspended
ruby, adorn the sitter’s ears, while another string of pearls
encircles her elevated hairstyle, surmounted by a ‘tire’ - a
wired headdress designed to shimmer as she moved. The
large ruff was secured at the back by the hair ornament,
reflecting the elaborate complexity of women’s fashion
at this date – particularly when, as in the present work, it
was further enhanced with theatrical elements.

 That love and devotion was the intended
message in this portrait is confirmed by the
presence of a small gold ‘S’ in the middle-left
background which is crossed through diagonally
(fig.2). This closed ‘S’, or S fermé (fermesse in French,
translating to ‘steadfastness’) was often incorporated
into costume and jewellery and was considered a
symbol of love, affection and fidelity.[5] However, this
symbol caused considerable confusion in the past, as it
was erroneously interpreted as an artist’s monogram.
Consequently, the miniature was attributed for over a
century to John Shute, an artist who died in 1563, many
years before this work was painted.[6]


A more likely contender is Rowland Lockey, an
apprentice of Hilliard whose influence is clearly
discernible in this work.[7 ] We can observe, for example,
the meticulous highlighting of the pearls with silver,
again now tarnished, and the edging of the lace ruff,
built up in multiple layers, as in Hilliard’s portraits, to
create a striking three-dimensional effect
Lockey was apprenticed to Hilliard for eight years from
1581, and by the 1590s had established himself as a
talented painter in his own right. Like his master, he
worked in both oils and miniature. He was commended
‘for oil and limning in some measure’ by Richard
Haydocke in the preface to his translation of Lomazzo
(1598) and was mentioned by Francis Meres in his Palladis
Tamia (1598) as one of the eminent artists working in
England at the time.[8]


Although numerous payments to Lockey for portraits are
documented, only a few works can be securely attributed to
him and no signed miniatures by him have yet come to
light.[9] However, a compelling case can be made for
Lockey as the artist of a large cabinet miniature in the
collection at the V&A.[10] The miniature is a copy of
Holbein’s now-lost group portrait of Thomas More and
his family, which Lockey is known to have copied fullscale in oils twice.[11] Lockey’s familiarity with Holbein’s
original, coupled with the evident talent of the artist
working on this scale, has been the basis of the attribution.
[12] Using the More family group as a touchstone work,
Sir Roy Strong, in his 1983 catalogue for the exhibition
Artists of the Tudor Court: The Portrait Miniature Rediscovered
1520–1620, attempted to assemble an oeuvre for the
artist.[13] One of the works he included was a portrait
of Lady Ann Cobham, which shows striking similarities
with the drawing of the figures in the More family group,
notably the relatively thick handling of paint and the firm
Fig. 2 | Deatail of Portrait of a Lady
3
drawing of the sitter’s eyelids. The Cobham portrait,
in turn, makes an interesting stylistic comparison with
the present work, especially in the drawing of the
physiognomy, with the treatment of the eyes and lips
a distinguishing commonality. Likewise, the painting
of the upswept hair and the shadowing of the pearls.
A further work in a private collection, depicting a lady
thought to be Bridget Morrison, Countess of Sussex,
also bears obvious similarities with both the Cobham
and the present work (fig.3).[14] Although the condition
of the miniature is poor, there are stylistic parallels to
be found in the delineation of the head, eyes, mouth
and nose, not to mention the depiction of the pearls
and rubies, which appear to be constructed in the same
manner as Hilliard. Of equal intrigue is the similarly
elaborate style of dress which likewise blends formality
with playful theatrics.

 Although we are unable to say for certain if Lockey
was the artist responsible for this entrancing work, it
is undoubtedly the best-preserved among the small
group now attributed to his hand and serves as a vivid
reminder of how many interesting discoveries are
still to be made in portrait miniature painting during
this period.