Count Demetrius de Palatiano in Suliot Costume

Provenance

Where it has been

1. Until 1881 –
   Probably Paul de Laage, sold to Goupil & Cie.
   high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

   “Probably Paul de Laage, sold to Goupil & Cie. (Until 1881) [notes: At the Salon of 1827 Delacroix presented a painting titled “Portrait de M. le comte de P[alatiano] en costume souliote,” a Greek aristocrat whom the artist may have met in Paris in late 1825 or early 1826, when the Count was on his way to London.  In his 1885 catalogue of Delacroix’s oeuvre, Alfred Robaut used an engraving by Frédéric Villot, a student and friend of Delacroix, to illustrate the artist’s portrait of the Count of Palatiano.  Executed in 1833, Villot’s engraving can be assumed to be an accurate representation of the Salon portrait.  The background in the engraving more closely matches the simple background found in the Cleveland painting than it does the more detailed background in another version of the painting, known to be an autograph work, currently in the National Gallery of Prague.  For many years, it was supposed that the painting now in Cleveland was the Salon picture.   But after years of analysis and debate, it has been concluded, based on the painting’s formal characteristics as well as its provenance, that the Cleveland picture is one of numerous copies after a lost original—possibly the Salon painting.  According to Robaut, the painting’s early provenance included, Villot, Heymann, Verdier, and Petit, but he may have partially confused its history with that of yet another portrait of Palatiano attributed to Delacroix, this one in a New York private collection.  The Cleveland picture's whereabouts can be secured by January 26, 1881, when it was purchased from “de Laage” by Goupil & Co.  De Laage is likely Paul de Laage, a prodigious collector of works by Delacroix who appears frequently in connection with works by Delacroix in the Goupil stock books. ]”

2. 1881 – 1887
   (Goupil & Cie, Paris)
   purchase
   high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

   “(Goupil & Cie, Paris) (1881-1887) [notes: Goupil's purchase the of the painting from de Laage is confirmed by the presence on the painting’s stretcher of the monogram and number “G&C 15510,” a stock number Goupil would later assign the painting, and which is cross-referenced in the stock books with its originally assigned number, 15099.   The Goupil ledger lists a “Figure turque” accompanied by stock no. 15099 (Goupil Book 10, Stock No. 15099, Page 146, Row 15, http://archives.getty.edu:30008/getty_images/digitalresources/goupil/jpgs/900239-vol10-146.jpg, Dealer Stock Books, Getty Research Institute), purchased on January 26, 1881.  Then, just one week later, the ledger shows a sale of “Figure turque” to Comte Pedro de Daupias for ff 6,700.  One week after that, on February 7, Daupias sold the painting back to Goupil, where it now was assigned stock no. 15136, and on that same day, “Hattat” bought it for ff 7,500 (Goupil Book 10, Stock No. 15136, Page 149, Row 7, http://archives.getty.edu:30008/getty_images/digitalresources/goupil/jpgs/900239-vol10-149.jpg).  Just one day later, on February 8, Hattat sold the painting back to Goupil for ff 4,200, and it was given stock no. 15138 (Goupil Book 10, Stock No. 15138, Page 149, Row 9, http://archives.getty.edu:30008/getty_images/digitalresources/goupil/jpgs/900239-vol10-149.jpg).  On April 4, 1881, Goupil sold the painting for ff 7,500 to Goldschmidt & Co. of Frankfurt, who sold it back to Goupil on June 22 for ff 2,430, and it was assigned stock no. 15510, the number inscribed on the stretcher.  Six years later, probably within days of the Goupil liquidation sale on May 35, 1887, it was offered for sale and failed to sell   (Goupil Book 10, Stock No. 15510, Page 174, Row 6, http://archives.getty.edu:30008/getty_images/digitalresources/goupil/jpgs/900239-vol10-174.jpg); it was likely bought in by Drouot commissaire-priseur Escribe, who gave ff 4,200 to Goupil for the painting according to the stock book. The painting finally sold at the Goupil liquidation sale to dealer Hector Brame for ff 2,550 (Goupil Book 11, Stock No. 15510, Page 33, Row 14,  http://archives.getty.edu:30008/getty_images/digitalresources/goupil/jpgs/900239-vol11-033.jpg).  Lee Johnson, author of the Delacroix catalogue raisonné, argues that all of this back and forth indicates that even in the 1880s, the painting’s attribution was in doubt.  He says that Goupil, too, knew it was not an autograph work, titling it “Figure turque” so as to distance it from Delacroix’s portrait of Palatiano.  Former CMA curator William S. Talbot suspected, however, that the Goupil ledger entries do not record actual sales, as it seems unlikely that the picture would have been bought and then returned at such brief intervals, even if its attribution was questioned, but rather indicate consignments to dealers.  Still, one must wonder whether the picture would have been assigned a new stock number after each consignment; new stock numbers are more typically given if a painting enters the same dealer’s possession at different points in time.  While it may be debatable whether dealer sales do or should impact attribution, it seems clear from the numerous transactions within less than a year and the six-year period that followed in which it remained with the Goupil until it was put up for auction, that the painting’s authorship was questioned, if not doubted.   Other attributions suggested by scholars have included Alexandre-Marie Colin, Richard  Parkes Bonington, Adolphe Mouilleron, and the engraver Villot. ]”

3. 1887 –
   (Goupil & Cie sale, Hôtel Drouot, May 25-27, 1887 (no. 43), sold to Hector Brame)
   high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

   “(Goupil & Cie sale, Hôtel Drouot, May 25-27, 1887 (no. 43), sold to Hector Brame) (1887)”

4. 1887 –
   (Hector Brame, Paris)
   purchase
   high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

   “(Hector Brame, Paris) (1887-) [notes: The record books of Brame & Lorenceau do not cover this period, and so the present-day gallery was unable to confirm the buyer and date of sale of this painting.   ]”

5. Until 1908 –
   Paul-Arthur Chéramy [1840-1912], Paris
   high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

   “Paul-Arthur Chéramy [1840-1912], Paris (Until 1908)”

6. 1908 –
   (Chéramy sale, Galerie Georges Petit, Paris, May 5-7, 1908 (no. 159), probably sold to Schoeller or Haro on behalf of Comte André Pastré
   high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

   “(Chéramy sale, Galerie Georges Petit, Paris, May 5-7, 1908 (no. 159), probably sold to Schoeller or Haro on behalf of Comte André Pastré (1908) [notes: According to the Johnson catalogue raisonné, the Dieterle Family records at the Getty Research Institute, which include records from Galerie Georges Petit, say that dealer André Schoeller purchased the painting at the Chéramy sale on behalf of Pastré.  However, at least one annotated copy of the sale catalogue gives the buyer as “Haro” (and a purchase price of ff 18,100),  most likely referring to Henri Haro, son of Étienne-François Haro; both were dealers and collectors.  While the Dieterle records are perhaps more likely to be accurate than an annotation, it is also possible that Haro, not Schoeller, was the agent who made the purchase on behalf of Pastré.  ]”

7. Probably 1908 – at least
   Comte André Pastré [1888-1960], Paris
   purchase
   high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

   “Comte André Pastré [1888-1960], Paris (Probably 1908 - at least) [notes: The Cleveland picture was certainly in Pastré’s possession by 1910, when he is listed as its owner in an exhibition at Galerie Georges Petit.  In 1930 he was listed as the owner in Louis Hourticq’s monograph of Delacroix’s oeuvre.  He may have owned the painting as late as 1950, when a footnote in the annotated edition of Delacroix’s journal from that year gives Pastré as the current owner.  ]”

8. Until 1952 –
   David David-Weill [1871-1952], Paris, to his wife, Flora David-Weill
   high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

   “David David-Weill [1871-1952], Paris, to his wife, Flora David-Weill (Until 1952) [notes: Exhibition labels on the back of the painting, as well as a "DW" monogram and what is likely an inventory number (37/5), situate the painting in the collection of David-Weill.]”

9. By 1963 – probably 1970
   Flora David-Weill [1878-1970], Paris
   high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

   “Flora David-Weill [1878-1970], Paris (By 1963 - probably 1970) [notes: Flora David-Weill likely came into possession of the painting when her husband died in 1952; we know with certainty that she had the painting by 1963, when she is listed as its owner in the 1963 Louvre exhibition, Centenaire d’Eugène Delacroix.]”

10. By 1972 –
    (Robert Schmit, Paris, probably sold to E.V. Thaw)
    high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

    “(Robert Schmit, Paris, probably sold to E.V. Thaw) (By 1972) [notes: The painting appears in a 1972 exhibition held at Galerie Schmit in Paris.  While it is possible that Thaw may have acted as an agent for Schmit for the sale of the picture to CMA, because Museum records make no reference to Schmit in connection with the transaction, it is more likely that Thaw purchased it outright from Schmit.]”

11. 1973 –
    The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, OH
    purchase
    high confidenceCleveland Museum of Art

    “The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, OH (1973-)”