Art Eyewitness Review: Gainsborough at the Frick Collection, New York

 

Gainsborough: the  Fashion of Portraiture

Frick Collection, New York City

February 11, 2026 - May 11, 2026

Reviewed by Ed Voves

Original photography by Anne Lloyd

The eighteenth century counterparts of today's "jet set" or "the rich and famous" were known as "people of fashion." Part of the pleasure of being included in such elite company - then and now - is having one's portrait painted for public display or for later generations to admire at their leisure.

"People of fashion" in Great Britain were fortunate in having numerous painters of talent to record their features. This was especially true by the 1750's, by which time native-born artists had finally gained precedence over the Flemish and German portrait painters who had earlier dominated the art scene in the British Isles.

The Frick Collection is currently exhibiting the works of one of the most successful and influential portrait painters of the Georgian Era. This is what historians call the period, in reference to the three successive monarchs, all named George, who reigned during the eighteenth century. 

After viewing this magnificent exhibit, I came away with feeling that a better title for those years would be the Age of Gainsborough.

   Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

 Thomas Gainsborough's Self-Portrait,1787

Thomas Gainsborough (1727-1788) is the key figure in the transformation of British art during the 1700's. His artistic career began with stiffly-posed group portraits known as "conversations." Then, in 1750, he painted a major, if small format, work which marked his emergence as one of Britain's leading artists.

Thomas Gainsborough's Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, ca. 1750

Mr. and Mrs. Andrews is both a portrait and a landscape. Hidden away in a private collection, it was for many years unknown to the public. 

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

 Thomas Gainsborough's Mr. and Mrs. Andrews (detail), ca. 1750

Since its rediscovery during the 1920's, Mr. and Mrs. Andrews has gained an almost mythic status. On loan to the Frick from the National Gallery in London, this is one of the stand-out works in Gainsborough: the Fashion of Portraiture.

Following Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, Gainsborough's prodigious output featured idyllic landscapes and "fancy" pictures, which are best understood as fanciful or romanticized depictions of rural children. To his chagrin, few of these sold.

Gainsborough's fame chiefly rests on his magnificent portraits. This is the theme of the Frick exhibition, a portal both to a long-ago epoch and to flesh and blood humanity, swathed in the latest fashion.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

Gallery view of Gainsborough: the Fashion of Portraiture at the Frick Collection. The paintings shown here are Mrs. Samuel Moody and Her sons, Samuel and Thomas, 1779/1784, and Mrs. Sheridan, ca. 1783

Amazingly, this is the first exhibition surveying Gainsborough's portraits by a New York City museum. This is a surprising development, given the rich holdings of his works at the Frick and, further up 5th Avenue, at The Met. Why? Perhaps, this is due to the many contradictions in Gainsborough's life and art.

Despite Gainsborough's success, he was never knighted, as his rival Joshua Reynolds was. Gainsborough was an outsider by birth and inclination. His family were "Non-Conformists" in the religious sense of those who would not subscribe to the theology and rituals of the Church of England. And when it came to his artistic practice, Gainsborough refused to tolerate any measure of oversight or interference from the official Royal Academy, presided over by Sir Joshua Reynolds.

This brief account of Gainsborough's background underscores how ironic, almost humorously so, was his acclaim and status as one of the leading portrait painters of "people of fashion."

Gainsborough did not particularly enjoy immortalizing the British aristocracy. Of England's "milords" and country gentlemen, he declared, "they have but one part worth looking at and that is their purse."

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

 Thomas Gainsborough's Mrs. Richard Brinsley Sheridan (detail),1783 

When it came to the "fair ladies" of England and Scotland, Gainsborough certainly found more than "one part worth looking at." This was a consequence of a sincere empathy for and an equally strong physical attraction to women.

Gainsborough's character was complex and compromised, especially his attitude to marital fidelity. The Frick exhibition, wisely, steers clear of this issue and controversy, in general. And so shall we, except to stop for a moment's reflection before the portrait of his wife, Margaret, painted in 1777-78.

 Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

 Thomas Gainsborough's Margaret Gainsborough (detail), ca. 1778 

Without a doubt this is a loving image, perhaps the greatest portrait of a spouse ever created and a tribute to one's soul mate. To be able to study this magnificent work at the Frick is truly an honor.  

Gainsborough: the Fashion of Portraiture has many insights of value to share. These relate both to Gainsborough's life and to the role of portraiture in human society - the act of creating the public image people present to the world, while clarifying or obscuring their inner selves. 

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

 Aimee Ng, John Updike Curator at the Frick Collection

In the text of the superb catalog to the exhibition, Aimee Ng, curator at the Frick, astutely notes:

Portraits are not simply records of what people looked like and wore - though some are. What the artist painted his sitters wearing at times had little to do with how they dressed in real life and, like portraiture itself, was a construction and invention in paint.

Gainsborough, quite often, had occasion to "invent in paint" favorable images of women, subjected to the raised eyebrows, gossip and scorn of polite society. 

One of the most notable instances of such invention was Gainsborough's portrait of the The Hon. Frances Duncombe, one of the treasures of the Frick. This elegant young woman, whose private life caused tongues to wag, will be featured in a forthcoming book written by Aimee Ng.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

 Thomas Gainsborough's The Hon. Frances Duncombe (detail), ca. 1776

Gainsborough was much more at ease painting aristocratic and upper-class ladies than their husbands or lovers, especially those who were army or naval commanders. Military portraits, laden with gold braid and sabers, were a specialty of Reynolds. 

A contrast in military portraiture:

Sir Joshua Reynolds' Sir John Burgoyne, 1766; Thomas

 Gainsborough's Captain Augustus John Hervey,1768.

Gainsborough, however, could certainly hold his own in this respect, too. His portrait of the Royal Navy officer, Captain Augustus John Hervey, can more than stand its ground against Reynold's Sir John Burgoyne, a notable work of the Frick Collection. In a future post, I plan to address the fascinating rivalry between Gainsborough and Reynolds.

As Gainsborough's fame spread, "well-born" ladies flocked to his studios. After a few years working in his native Suffolk, Gainsborough set-up his practice in the resort city of Bath in 1759. Then, he relocated to the West End of London in 1774. His customers seldom were disappointed with their "likeness" by Gainsborough.

Thomas Gainsborough, Mary, Countess Howe, ca. 1763-1764

Mary, Countess Howe, painted at some point during the years, 1763-1764, is a particularly notable example of Gainsborough's acute perception and masterly skill. The wife of a British naval hero who was heir to a noble title, the Countess Howe had been born Mary Hartopp of a Nottinghamshire family far down in the ranks of the social register. But you would never know that looking at the hauteur of her pose and the gleam in her eyes, bewitching and calculating in equal measure.                                                                                                                                                               

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

Gallery view of Gainsborough: the Fashion of Portraiture.

Entering the two exhibition galleries at the Frick can - at least initially - be disorienting. There are twenty-five paintings on view, several of them full-length, almost life-sized, portraits of "women of fashion." The scale of these paintings and the shimmer of silk and glistening pearls can make for sensory-overload. It really takes some effort straining your neck to glimpse the faces of Gainsborough's female protagonists.

Gainsborough came from a family involved in the fabric trade. He thus had an insider's knowledge of handling silk and satin, velvet and lace. 

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

 Detail of Thomas Gainsborough's The Hon. Frances Duncombe, 1776

Gainsborough also acquired first-hand experience of the "cut-throat" nature of business practice in Georgian England. His father's textile firm went bankrupt when he was a boy. Shortly afterward, he was sent to London to learn the engraver's trade. It was there that he took night-school painting classes at the St. Martin's Lane Academy managed by the redoubtable William Hogarth.

Like Hogarth, Gainsborough was single-minded and determined to paint his own way. In the mid-eighteenth century, there was a vogue for dressing-up in gowns and tunics of the type appearing in the seventeenth century portraits by Anthony van Dyck. Except in certain instances - The Blue Boy, being the most celebrated example - Gainsborough would have none of this. 

Gainsborough insisted that his patrons wear the clothing of the present-day. Many of them, initially pleased, would bring their portraits back after styles had changed, to have them repainted in the latest fashion. Gainsborough took it in stride. 

"I am very well aware of the Objection to modern dresses in Pictures," Gainsborough wrote to Lord Dartmouth, "that they are soon out of fashion and look awkward; but as that misfortune cannot be helped we must set it against the unluckiness of fancied dresses taking away Likenesses, the principle beauty and intention of a portrait."

In the case of the portrait of Elizabeth Moody (1756-1782), who died from tuberculosis at the age of twenty-six, Gainsborough was commissioned to rework it, but not because of a change in fashion. 

  Anne Lloyd, Photo (2025)

 Thomas Gainsborough's Mrs. Samuel Moody and Her Sons, Samuel and Thomas, ca. 1779, reworked ca. 1784.

The painting we see, from the collection of the Dulwich Picture Library, is very different from the first version of the work. This had likely been painted at the time of her marriage in 1779. But it was not until 1989, that the radical extent of the difference was established.

At the time of her death, Elizabeth Moody had two young sons, Samuel (twenty months old) and Thomas (eight months). The children in the painting, however, are much older.

Furthermore, art historians noted that Mrs. Moody's right hand, holding young Thomas, was awkwardly painted by Gainsborough's standards. By comparison, her left hand, grasping Samuel's arm, is beautifully composed.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

 Detail of Thomas Gainsborough's Mrs. Samuel Moody and Her Sons

Something did not add-up.

The exhibition catalog explains these seeming discrepancies:

In 1989, X-radiography of the portrait confirmed that Gainsborough had originally painted Elizabeth Moody alone, probably around the time of her marriage in 1779 to Samuel Moody and before the births of Samuel, in 1781, and Thomas, in 1782. ... Evidently, Samuel Moody brought the portrait back to Gainsborough in the year or two after Elizabeth’s death (judging from the apparent age of the toddlers). Adding the figures of the children as they appeared then, and not at the age they were when she died, Gainsborough painted over her right arm, which had originally reached upward to toy with a pearl necklace.

This explanation, having brilliantly solved the mystery of this poignant work of art, should not distract us from the more fundamental message of Gainsborough's art. This is visible in the astonishing way Gainsborough articulated the face of young Samuel Moody (above), his mother and little brother - and all of the other subjects of Gainsborough's "pencil", as paint brushes were then called.                               

  

                                                             Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)

 A gallery of portraits from works on view in

Gainsborough: the Fashion of Portraiture. Clockwise from top left: 

Grace Dalrymple Elliott,1778; Thomas Keable, ca.1750; Ignatius Sancho, 1768; Mary, Duchess of Montagu, ca.1768

A Gainsborough grand-portrait is, almost without exception, not an example of beautiful clothing "making" the woman or man who posed before his easel. However great his facility in depicting the costumes of his subjects, Gainsborough's ability in summoning-forth their humanity with oil on canvas was greater still.

Let the last word be Gainsborough's, from a quote mentioned earlier.

"Likenesses," Thomas Gainsborough said, are "the principle beauty and intention of a portrait."

***

Text: Copyright of Ed Voves, all rights reserved                                                                                          

Original photography, copyright of Anne Lloyd

Introductory Image: Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Gallery view of Gainsborough: the Fashion of Portraiture, showing Thomas Gainsborough’s Mrs. Richard Brinsley Sheridan, ca. 1783.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Thomas Gainsborough’s Self-Portrait, ca. 1787. Oil on canvas: 30 7/8 x 25 3/8 in. (77.3 x 64.5 cm) Royal Academy of Arts, (03/1395)

Thomas Gainsborough (English, 1727-1788) Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, ca. 1750. Oil on canvas:27 1/2 x 47 in. (69.8 x 119.4 cm) National Gallery, London (NG6301)

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Mr. and Mrs. Andrews (detail), ca. 1750.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Gallery view of Gainsborough: the Fashion of Portraiture, showing Thomas Gainsborough’s Mrs. Samuel Moody and Her Sons, Samuel and Thomas, 1779/1784. and Mrs. Richard Brinsley Sheridan, ca. 1783.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026)Thomas Gainsborough's Mrs.Richard Brinsley Sheridan (detail), ca. 1783. Oil on canvas: 86 1/2 x 60 1/2 in. (251.46 x 185.42 cm.)  National Gallery, Washington D.C.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026).Thomas Gainsborough’s Margaret Gainsborough (detail), ca. 1778. Oil on canvas: 30 3/16 x 25 1/8 in. (76.6 x 73.8 cm) The Courtauld, London (P.1932.SC.157)

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Amee Ng, John Updike Curator at the Frick Collection.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Thomas Gainsborough’s The Hon. Frances Duncombe (detail), ca. 1776. Oil on canvas: 92 1/4 x 61 1/8 in. (234.3 x 155.3 cm) The Frick Collection, New York

Comparisons of paintings by Sir Joshua Reynolds, Sir John Burgoyne, 1766, and Thomas Gainsborough’s Captain Augustus John Hervey, later 3rd Earl of Bristol, ca. 1768.

Thomas Gainsborough (English,1727-1788) Mary, Countess Howe, 1763–64. Oil on canvas: 94 15/16 x 60 3/4 in. (243.2 x 154.3 cm) English Heritage, Kenwood House, London; The Iveagh Bequest.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Gallery view of Gainsborough: the Fashion of Portraiture.

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Detail of Thomas Gainsborough’s The Hon. Frances Duncombe.

 Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Thomas Gainsborough’s Margaret Gainsborough (detail), ca. 1778. Oil on canvas: 30 3/16 x 25 1/8 in. (76.6 x 73.8 cm) The Courtauld, London (P.1932.SC.157)

 

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Mrs. Samuel Moody and Her Sons, Samuel and Thomas, ca. 1779, reworked ca. 1784. Oil on canvas: 92 1/8 x 60 11 ⁄ 16 in. (234 x 154.2 cm). Dulwich Picture Gallery, London (DPG316)

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Thomas Gainsborough’s Grace Dalrymple Elliott (detail), 1778. Oil on canvas: 92 1/4 x 60 1/2 in. (234.3 x 153.7 cm) The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Bequest of William K. Vanderbilt, 1920 (20.155.1)

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Thomas Keable in Thomas Gainsborough’s Peter Darnell Muilman, Charles Crokatt and William Keable in a Landscape, ca. 1750. Oil on canvas: 765 x 642 mm. Tate Britain/Gainsborough’s House

Anne Lloyd, Photo (2026) Thomas Gainsborough’s Ignatius Sancho, 1768. Oil on canvas: 29 x 241/2 in. (73.7 x 62.2 cm). National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa.

Thomas Gainsborough (English, 1727-1788) Mary, Duchess of Montagu, ca.1768. Oil on canvas: 49 1/4 x 39 1/2 in. (125.1 x 100.3 cm). Duke of Buccleuch, Bowhill House, Scottish Borders; lent by the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, K. T. and the Trustees of the Buccleuch Chattels Trust.

 

 here

Art Eyewitness Review: To the Holy Sepulcher: Treasures of the Terra Sancta Museum at the Frick Collection

            

To the Holy Sepulcher: 

Treasures of the Terra Sancta Museum

The Frick Collection, New York City

October 2, 2025 - January 5, 2026

Reviewed by Ed Voves

After a five year, $220 million revitalization project, the Frick Collection has reopened its doors. Upon entering this fabled "museum mile" institution in New York City for the first time since 2019, my initial reaction was one of relief.

"This is the 'old' Frick, only better."

My snap judgement was certainly correct, but "only better" proved to be an understatement.

I've been going to the Frick Collection since the early 1980's and part its charm has always been its "oasis" of civilization ambiance. 

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

Gallery view of the Frick Collection, New York, showing

 Andrea del Verrochio's Bust of a Woman, ca. 1460-1470

The sensational array of the Old Master paintings and classic sculptures of its permanent collection and the splendid setting of the Garden Court and the awesome West Gallery, to list but a few Frick highlights ... would this idyllic realm be preserved? Or would the addition of a spectacular lecture hall, new exhibition galleries, up-scale book/gift shop and much more at the "new" Frick overwhelm the atmosphere of beauty and civility of the "old" Frick.

Well, these questions were answered with a resounding affirmation of careful planning and judicious balance,  incorporating new technology and 21st century amenities with the Frick's "gilded-age" heritage. During my first "look-see" back in the spring when the Frick reopened to public inspection, I was mightily impressed.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

A view of the entrance to the Frick Collection, New York City

When I returned on September 30 for the press preview of the first major exhibition to be mounted in the "new" Frick, I was prepared to be pleased. But the curators of the exhibit, To the Holy Sepulcher: Treasures of the Terra Sancta Museum, had taken a page from Serge Diaghilev's playbook. 

"Astonish me," Diaghilev would say to the set and costume designers of the Ballet Russes. And that is just what the curators of the Frick Collection did:

Astonish me.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

Throne of Eucharistic Exposition, 1665. Created by Pietro Juvarra

 and sons, as a gift from King Philip IV of Spain and Sicily

Entering the new exhibition gallery, named in honor of Ronald Lauder, was akin to peering into the just-opened tomb of Tutankamum back in 1925. 

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

 Red Pontifical Vestments of King Louis XIII of France, 1619. Created by Alexandre Paynet for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Jerusalem

Gleaming works of art in precious metals, set with jewels. Sumptuous garments. "Beautiful Things" which elicited many an "Oh, my God" and gasps of wonder from members of the press - people not easily wowed.

However, for all of the golden aura of the treasures on display in the Lauder Gallery, their value can only - truly - be computed in terms of religious ideals, of devotion to God.  

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

The Resurrection, silver bas-relief, created in Naples, 1736

This is the real theme of To the Holy Sepulcher: Treasures of the Terra Sancta Museum. Reflect for several minutes in front of the monumental silver relief depiction of Christ's Resurrection, created in Naples in 1736, and you will, I believe, adjust your focus from the things of this world to those of the next.                                                                                                                                                        

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

Gallery view of the To the Holy Sepulcher: Treasures of the

 Terra Sancta Museum, showing Crucifix from Naples, 1756, and Throne of Eucharistic Exposition, 1754, also from Naples.

                                                 . 

This depiction of the risen Christ, cast and chased in silver, was intended to focus the minds of Christian faithful on the dramatic moment of mankind's liberation from sin. But most of the other works of art on view in the Frick exhibition - all from the collection of the Terra Sancta Museum in Jerusalem - had a utilitarian rather than contemplative function. 

During the 1500's-1700's, rulers in Roman Catholic nations in Europe - France, Spain, Portugal, the Republic of Venice and others - commissioned ecclesiastical vessels and vestments for use in religious services in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. This holy shrine was built on the reputed site where the body of Jesus was buried after his crucifixion and where his resurrection from the dead occurred. Only the most valuable materials could be used and the finest craftsmen be employed for such a sacred purpose.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

Crucifix, created in Naples, 1756. Crafted in gold and lapis lazuli, with garnets, rubies, emeralds, diamonds, quartzes, and glass.

An example of the concept that "only the best, is good enough" for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is the crucifix (above), created in Naples and delivered to Jerusalem in June 1737. Its blue color comes from the rare mineral pigment from Afghanistan, lapis lazuli, and it was embellished with almandine garnets, rubies, emeralds, diamonds, quartzes and decorative glass.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

Crozier donated by King Louis XIV of France to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, 1654-55. Created by Nicolas Dolin in embossed gilt silver.

The motives which led monarchs like France's Sun King, Louis XIV, or the crafty Doges of Venice, to invest significant financial resources in a bishop's staff known as a crozier or a set of huge candle holders called torcheres (below) were a blend of public piety and craving for political prestige.  

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

One of a Pair of Torchères, 1762. Created by the Al San Lorenzo

 Workshop in Venice and sent to Jerusalem in 1765. 

Neither donor intention, especially the second, was entirely in keeping with one of the essential precepts of Christian doctrine. This was proclaimed in the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 6, 19-21.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. ²⁰ But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. ²¹ For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

This sound spiritual advice was frequently ignored by the donors of of these expensive gifts. The French monarchy, during the 1600's, was especially determined to remind the recipients of its gifts in Jerusalem who their benefactor was. As can be seen below, the royal symbol of France, the fleur-de-lis, was engraved and embroidered on every possible space of these works of ecclesiastical art, even on the cross upon which Jesus was martyred.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

Processional Cross, bearing the Fleur-de-lis symbol of the French Monarchy, ca. 1620. Attributed to Claude Caignet; donated by Louis XIII. 

By contrast with this excessive royal "branding", the silver bas relief of Christ's resurrection, which we commented upon earlier (shown again, below), merely lists the city of its origin, Naples, and the date of its creation, in a placard above the dramatic scene.

Ed Voves Photo (2025) Detail of The Resurrection, 1736

A practical solution was found to deal with the contradiction of professed piety and worldly ambition. The treasures which the Catholic rulers of Europe sent to Jerusalem were stored, not in heaven, but in the safe-keeping of devout monks, dedicated to lives of holiness, service and poverty. They were - and remain to this day - known as the Order of the Friars Minor, the Frati Francescani, the Franciscans.

Founded in 1209 by St. Francis of Assisi, the Franciscans have been active in the Holy Land for eight hundred years. It takes some time for this span of time to register, but is even more incredible when an additional calculation is factored in. For over five hundred years, from the fall of the last Crusader fortress in 1291 to the landing of Napoleon's expeditionary force in Egypt in 1798, the Franciscans were the only Western European group to maintain a lasting presence in the Holy Land.

The Franciscan mission to the Holy Land began with St. Francis himself in 1219, when he ventured to Egypt to meet Sultan Malek-al-Kamil. Francis' hope to convert the Muslim leader predictably failed. His courage and piety, however, made a lasting and favorable impression. This was quite a contrast to the European military attempts of the era, the Crusades, which attempted to regain the Holy Land by force of arms.

The last Crusader stronghold, the fortress city of Acre, fell to the Muslim armies in 1291. Almost all of the European Christians seeking safety in Acre were slaughtered, enslaved or paid huge sums to greedy Italian ship captains for a passage to safety in Cyprus. A few Franciscans survived and courageously set themselves the task of tending to the remnant of survivors and to Christian pilgrims who undertook the dangerous journey to visit the holy places in Jerusalem.

Illustration from The Mission of the Franciscans of the Custody of the Holy Land. From an historical account by Elzearius Horn OFM, 1731

Thus began the incredible story of the Franciscan mission to the Holy Land, which continues to this day. The formal name of the Franciscan mission in Jerusalem and the Middle East was termed the “Custody of the Holy Land.” 

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

Picture taken from the Frick Collection press preview lecture of

 To the Holy Sepulcher, showing curator Xavier F. Salomon describing the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, shown on the screen.

The mandate to serve the remaining Catholic population in the Holy Land and to protect the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, was granted to the Franciscans by a special order of Pope Clement VI in 1342.

The Franciscans lived lives of personal privation and much of the funds raised in Europe for their support went to Muslim rulers, as taxes and bribes. The stunningly beautiful vestments and Church vessels and implements on view in the Frick exhibit were for God’s service and in no way reflected the circumstances of the lives of the Franciscans who administered “the Custody of the Holy Land.”

One of the objects in the Frick exhibition which combines the ideals of beauty and actual use in the service of God is a vestment known as a cope, made in Genoa, Italy, at some point in the late 1600's. This incredible garment would have been worn by the Catholic priest celebrating the Mass at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

Cope of the Red Pontifical Vestments of Genoa. Likely from the workshop of Domenico Piola. Gift of the Commissariat of Genoa, 1692.  

According to the exhibition text, the form of embroidery used to create this cope was called "needle painting", long and short stitch, using silk thread. Some actual painting on the fabric was also used.

The central image of this "needle painting" is a depiction of St. George slaying the Dragon. St. George was the patron saint of Genoa, Italy, whose fleet of warships frequently battled the Muslim Barbary pirates based in North Africa - when Genoa was't fighting its Christian rival, Venice.

For five hundred years, the Franciscans carefully and guardedly used the sacred works of art like this cope from Genoa. But in a bizarre twist of fate, the Franciscans not only preserved these crucifixes and croziers, candlesticks and copes from the Ottoman Turks. They saved them from the sorrowful fate which befell similar ecclesiastical treasures in Europe during the French Revolution.

When the French Revolution turned violent in 1792, followed by the aggressive military campaigns waged by the French Republic and Napoleon, the churches and monasteries of the Catholic Church were targeted. Many were desecrated and destroyed. First in France and then, as the French legions stormed into Italy, Germany and Austria, many of the sacred vessels used to celebrate the Christian Mass were seized and melted down to provide funding for further invasions and acts of vandalism.  

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

Throne of Eucharistic Exposition, 1754. Created by Antonio de Laurentiis. Delivered from Naples to Jerusalem, October 24, 1755. 

By the time of Napoleon's fall in 1815, almost all of the precious ecclesiastical art of Western Europe had been consumed by the French war machine. Only in Spain, where the populace successfully resisted the French invaders, were numerous works of sacred art preserved, similar to the splendid Throne of Eucharistic Exposition (1754), which we can now view in the Frick exhibit.

Given the tradition - and temptation - of seizing works of art, made of precious metal, and transforming them into weapons of war, the Franciscans kept their holy vessels and vestments a closely-guarded secret. For God's "eyes" only, as it were.

In 1902, the Franciscans opened an archaeological museum in Jerusalem - but the ecclesiastical treasures remained out-of-sight. It was not until the 1970's that scholars were given limited access to study these precious objects.

In 1997, several objects from the Franciscan archaeological museum were loaned to the Metropolitan Museum for its Glory of Byzantium exhibition. This was repeated in 2016 with the Met's exhibit, Jerusalem 1000-1400: Every People Under Heaven. With the success of these exhibitions, it was decided to mount exclusive displays of the Franciscan ecclesiastical treasures in Europe, beginning with a major exhibit at the Palace of Versailles in 2013.

That year, an even bigger decision was made by the Franciscans, to build an art museum in Jerusalem to complement its archaeological collection. For the first time, the Franciscan ecclesiastical treasures will be available for regular public study and enjoyment. The new venue, slated to open in 2027, will be called the Terra Sancta Museum - Art and History.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) 

Picture from the Frick Collection lecture on To the Holy Sepulcher, showing leading planners of the exhibition, (from left)

 art historian Benoît Constensoux, a member of the Franciscan Order, Father Stephane Milovitch, OFM, and Xavier F. Salomon

In the meantime, selections of the Terra Sancta treasures will be continue to be displayed in traveling exhibitions. The Frick Collection played a major part in this initiative, principally through the efforts of its former deputy director, Xavier F. Salomon. After the exhibition finishes its visit to the Frick, it will travel to the Kimbell Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. 

The "ambitions" behind the To the Holy Sepulcher exhibition and the new museum in Jerusalem exceed the usual scope of such ventures. True to their mission, the Franciscans are seeking to promote harmony and understanding among people of faith and differing forms of religious observance.

 "Dialog is a path of peace that we Franciscans have been following for centuries," noted Father Stephane Milovitch,

Father Milovitch served as the director of the Office of Cultural Heritage of the Custody of the Holy Land during the years of preparation for the To the Holy Sepulcher exhibition.

Ed Voves, Photos (2025) 

At left is a Monstrance, from Naples, 1746. At right, silver gilt ecclesiastical vessels donated by the Holy Roman Empire, 1700's

Will this wonderful exhibition at the Frick Collection and the Terra Sancta Museum, when it opens in Jerusalem, succeed in making such a meaningful statement? Will these displays of sacred works of art encourage peace in our contentious world? Admittedly, that is a lot to expect from the curators of art museums. 

Yet, on further reflection, there is always ground for hope and prayer. Miracles have been known to happen before in the Holy Land, the Terra Sancta.

***

Text: Copyright of Ed Voves, all rights reserved

Introductory Image:

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Detail of one of a set of Red Pontifical Vestments of King Louis XIII of France, 1619.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Gallery view of the Frick Collection, New York, showing Andrea del Verrochio's Bust of a Woman, ca. 1460-1470.

Exterior view of the Frick Collection, New York City, taken on September 30, 2025.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Throne of Eucharistic Exposition, Messina, 1665. Created by  Pietro Juvarra (ca. 1609–1705) and his sons Eutichio (d. 1682) and Sebastiano (d. 1701). Cast, chased, embossed, and partially gilt silver, and precious stones H. 73 1/4 in. (186 cm); w. 43 1/2 in. (110.5 cm); depth 15 15/16 in. (40.5 cm) Registered in Jerusalem as a gift from King Philip IV of Spain and Sicily, April 21, 1666. Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem (CTS-OA-25346)

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Red Pontifical Vestments of King Louis XIII of France, 1619. Created by Alexandre Paynet (or Penet) (act. 1615–56).Crimson damask and satin ground (not original). Applied embroidery: gold threads (filé, cordonnet, cannetille, both shiny and crimped), silver thread, silk thread of different thicknesses. Various types of braid; silver (clasps) Embroidery: couching, gaufrure, long and short stitch Cope 1: h. 59 1/16 in. (150 cm); w. 118 1/8 in. (300 cm) Cope 2: h. 60 1/4 in. (153 cm); w. 118 1/8 in. (300 cm) Cope 3: h. 59 13/16 in. (152 cm); w. 118 1/8 in. (300 cm) Dalmatic 1: h. 42 1/2 in. (108 cm); w. 48 in. (122 cm) Dalmatic 2: h. 42 1/2 in. (108 cm); w. 47 5/8 in. (121 cm) Antependium: h. 38 in. (96.5 cm); w. 82 11/16 in. (210 cm) Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem (CTS-OA 20534)

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) The Resurrection, Naples, 1736 Cast, chased, and repoussé silver H. 67 5/16 in. (171.5 cm); w. 78 9/16 in. (199.4 cm); depth 10 5/8 in. (26.7 cm) Inscription: In upper cartouche, NEAPOLI / A.D. MDCCXXXVI (In Naples, in the year of our Lord 1736) Provenance: Delivered from Naples to Jerusalem, August 13, 1737. Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem (CTS-OA-00007)

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Gallery view of the To the Holy Sepulcher: Treasures of the Terra Sancta Museum, showing Crucifix from Naples, 1756, and Throne of Eucharistic Exposition, 1754, also from Naples.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Crucifix, Naples, 1756. Gold, lapis lazuli, almandine garnets, rubies, emeralds, diamonds, quartzes, and glass H. 35 1/2 in. (90 cm); w. 13 1/2 in. (34.2 cm); depth 9 in. (23 cm) Emblems: On base, coat of arms of Commissariat of Naples. Provenance: Delivered from Naples to Jerusalem, June 3, 1757. Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem (CTS-OA-25331)

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Crozier donated by King Louis XIV of France, Paris, 1654-55. Created by Nicolas Dolin (act. in Paris 1648–84) Cast, embossed, chased and gilt silver; cabochons and table-cut amethysts (?) and blue glass h. 80 1/8 in. (203.5 cm); w. 6 11/16 in. (17 cm); depth 4 1/8 in. (10.5 cm) Donated by Louis XIV, arrived in Jerusalem on May 8, 1658. Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem (CTS-OA-25416)

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) One of a Pair of Torchères, Venice, 1762. Al San Lorenzo Workshop. Cast, chased, and repoussé silver, gilded in parts H. 96 1/6 in. (244 cm); w. 27 9/16 in. (70 cm); depth 24 13/16 in. (63 cm) Inscriptions: In crowned shields at the base of each base, ANNO / DO. / MDCCLXII (In the year of our Lord 1762). Provenance: Delivered from Venice to Jerusalem, June 23, 1765. Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem (CTS-OA-25345)

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Processional Cross, bearing the Fleur-de-lis symbol of the French Monarchy, ca. 1620. Attributed to Claude Caignet (active as of 1609) and donated by Louis XIII. 107 7/8 x 20 1/4 x 6 6/16 in. (274 x 51.5 x 16 cm) Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem (CTS-OA-25347)

Illustration from The Mission of the Franciscans of the Custody of the Holy Land. In Ichnographiae locorum Monumentorum Veterum Terrae Sanctae, by Elzearius Horn OFM, 1731. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City, Vat. lat.9233.pt.3, 59r

Ed Voves, Photo (2025)  Picture taken from the Frick Collection press preview lecture of To the Holy Sepulcher, showing curator Xavier F. Salomon describing the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, shown on the screen.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025), Cope of the Red Pontifical Set of Vestments of Genoa, 1686-97. Probably workshop of Domenico Piola (1628–1703). Satin ground. Applied embroidery: silk thread in the manner of “needle painting” (long and short stitch); painting on silk H. 54 1/8 in. (137.5 cm); w. 110 13/16 in. (281.5 cm) Gift of the Commissariat of Genoa; arrived in Jerusalem, 1692 (CTS-OA-20271)

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Throne of Eucharistic Exposition, 1754. Created by Antonio de Laurentiis. Gold, gilt copper, almandine garnets, amethysts, rock crystal, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, sapphires, carnelians, peridots, smoky quartzes, glass and doublets H. 68 3/4 in. (174.5 cm); w. 32 1/4 in. (82 cm); depth 15 3/8 in. (39 cm) Delivered from Naples to Jerusalem, October 24, 1755. Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem (CTS-OA-25392)

Ed Voves, Photo (2025)  Picture taken from the Frick Collection press preview lecture of To the Holy Sepulcher, showing leading figures in the planning of the exhibition,(from left) art historian Benoît Constensoux, an unidentified member of the Franciscan Order, Father Stephane Milovitch, OFM, and Xavier F. Salomon

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Monstrance, Naples, 1746. Gold, rubies, emeralds and diamonds: 27 15/16 x 10 1/4 x 7 1/16 in. (71 x 26 x 18 cm.) Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem.

Ed Voves, Photo (2025) Gallery Photo of the To the Holy Sepulcher exhibition, showing a display of silver gilt ecclesiastical vessels – ewer and basin, dish and chalice, a tray and cruets – donated by the Holy Roman Empire to the Franciscan Order in Jerusalem during the 18^th century.