18 museomag   04 ‘ 2022 
as well as professional triumph, and must have been 
at the height of her success in 1745, the year we 
can date Latham’s portrait to on stylistic grounds. 
Unlike many of his contemporaries who made their 
living from portraiture, Latham was evidently not in the 
habit of excessively flattering his models. This is well 
illustrated by the following anecdote recounted by 
his biographer Pasquin: “When Latham was in his pros- 
perity, a lady of distinction, with coarse lineaments, 
sat to him for her portrait, which he drew faithfully; 
but she was so disgusted with the performance, that 
she abused the painter; who immediately tore it from 
the frame, and had it nailed on the floor of his hall, as 
a piece of oil-cloth. The consequence was, that every 
person who came in, knew the likeness; and the anec- 
dote became so general, that the mortified nymph 
repented her vain indiscretion, and offered to buy the 
picture at any terms; which the artist peremptorily 
refused; and was so ungallant as to have her effigy 
trodden under the feet even of his domestics.” 
(A. Pasquin, Memoirs of the Royal Academicians and 
an Authentic History of the Artists in Ireland, London 
1796, p. 29). Indeed, the model in Latham’s painting 
now at the MNHA doesn’t have the very long, straight 
nose that fashionable women usually are seen with 
in British portraiture at the time – including several 
existing portraits of Peg Woffington. Her oval face, 
Pieter van Bleeck (1697-1764), Portrait of the actress Margaret 
‘Peg’ Woffington, as Phebe, 1747. Mezzotint and engraving on 
paper, 351 x 250 mm. Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam. 
high forehead and prominent nose, however, generally 
match up with the features displayed in these portraits. 
The portrayal of Peg Woffington as Phebe of 1747 by 
Pieter van Bleeck is a good example of this. 
DRESSED AS AN ACTRESS 
When I consulted our colleagues from the Department 
of Textiles and Fashion at the Victoria & Albert Museum 
in London, they concluded that Latham’s portrait 
should be dated to about 1745-50, based on the sitter’s 
hairstyle and lace necklace. Peg Woffington’s outfit 
doesn’t reflect the fashionable dress of the time but 
instead is a form of classical/artistic dress seen only in 
portraiture. It isn’t something that would have been 
worn in everyday life and is typified by the front clasp 
closures and the scalloped sleeve, neither of which 
featured in the fashion of the day. The heyday of this 
style was the late 17th century, as shown in portraits by 
other British painters like Sir Peter Lely (1618-1680), but 
it carried over into the early 18th century in paintings 
by Godfrey Kneller (1646-1723) and are still present 
later on in the work of the aforementioned Joseph 
Highmore. Although there is no direct link to the 
theatre, the sitter’s dress in the MNHA’s portrait does 
indeed look theatrical to the specialists of the V&A 
and appears to confirm her presumed identity as an 
actress. 
In conclusion, Latham’s striking portrait of Peg 
Woffington seems to be an exciting art historical disco- 
very and brings a remarkable woman back to the fore. 
Its acquisition not only adds a beautiful work of art to 
the MNHA’s collection of international portraits, but 
also a multitude of fascinating stories to tell museum 
visitors. The portrait’s aesthetic qualities and narrative 
power make it an attractive work to loan out interna- 
tionally too, which, in turn, increases public familiarity 
with our collection. And that’s exactly the direction in 
which the MNHA wants to go: towards you, the visitor! 
Ruud Priem 
REDISCOVERED PORTRAIT OF AN 
IRISH ACTRESS AND SOCIALITE  (2/2)