The oval glass painted with a half-length portrait of a lady in fancy dress with a black veil over her head, looking to the left, her left arm raised and holding a mask, wearing a jewelled cross, pearls with a jewel at her breast and a bracelet, in the original oval gilt wood frame.

The image source for this reverse glass painting is a print titled ‘The Fair Nun Unmask’d’, first published by Carington Bowles, London, 1769. Several other versions of the print are in the British Museum.

‘The Fair Nun Unmask’d’ is after Henry Robert Morland's oil on canvas of c. 1769, which was originally exhibited under the title ‘A lady in a masquerade habit’. Gilbey and Cuming state that there was a companion to this portrait 'The Beauty Unmask'd' (Sir Walter Gilbey and Edward William Dirom Cuming, George Morland, his life and works, 1907 p. 6). See British Museum no. 2010,7081.1649 for the print by Carington Bowles.

Below the title ‘The fair nun unmask'd’, the print source carries two lines describing Belinda from ‘The Rape of the Lock’, canto ii.7 by Alexander Pope (1688-1744): ‘On her white breast a sparkling cross she wore, Which Jews might kiss and infidels adore’. This gives the print additional contemporary meaning compared to the original painting. Morland painted a woman in the type of dress worn at a masquerade ball - a popular form of entertainment in the 18th century where different social classes could mix and gender roles could be challenged. They were considered by many to be very risqué affairs. The combination of Morland’s image with the lines from Pope directly illustrates contemporary concerns about the morality of such events and the decline of religious devotion. The jewelled cross worn by the sitter functions as an ornament rather than a religious symbol, embellishing her "white breast." It is a decorative, secular item, which even Jews can kiss and heathens and atheists can admire, despite its religious meaning. The positioning of the cross is alluring and suggests erotic as well as religious love and the neglect of religious and moral values. See Helena Davis, 'The Fair Nun Unmasked', Leeds Art Calendar, 1979, no.85 for more information about the context of the image and the possible identity of the sitter in Morland’s painting. (https://www.leedsartfund.org/art-calendar/no-85-1979/)

The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser of Friday 18th of May 1770 contains a report of a masquerade ball held the previous Monday. Many of the costumes are remarked upon, and guesses are made as to the likely identity of some of the participants. The most notable of which was probably: 'A fair nun, supposed to be Miss Banks, was much distinguished: she was followed by a domino, imagined to be Lord B-lb-ke, which gave her some trouble; on having recourse to her beads to avoid him, he asked her what sins such a faultless form could have committed to occasion such intense devotion? It is not for my own sins, answered the sweet devotee, it is for the sins of others, the enormous vices of the times. Pray, madam, returned he, what vice do you distinguish by the name enormous? Adultery, sir, says she; on which the gentleman walked off'.

The “Miss Banks” here is likely to have been the well-known society figure and collector Sarah Sophia Banks whose collection of ephemera and other items forms an integral part of the collections of the British Museum.

Newspapers of the period carried “Masquerade intelligence” columns, reporting on these extravagant balls and making guesses as to the identities of those who attended. A report in the Morning Chronicle, 4th of may 1772, revealed that a masquerade had been held at the Pantheon and that: 'The Hon. Mrs. Bou—e, in the character of a Spanish nun, might have tempted a saint to sin'

The success of Morland's images, particularly that of the Nun is amply demonstrated by the number of prints of the subject, in widely varying qualities, that survive. This shows that the piece was popular with all markets from the connoisseur print collectors to those who wanted a cheap impression to hang on the wall.

For another example of a Chinese reverse glass paintings after this image, see Christie’s, London, 7 November 2019 lot 15 in which the sitter looks to her right. The fact that Chinese glass paintings after this image survive in two different orientations suggests that some of them were probably taken from proofs in reverse.

Henry Robert Morland (c. 1716 - 1797), was a portrait painter, dealer, restorer and forger. He exhibited at the Society of Artists (1760-1783) and the Royal Academy (1771-1781). Henry was the father of renowned artist George Morland (1763-1804), known for his scenes of English rural life and picturesque landscapes.

It is interesting to note that George Morland’s work was also recreated as reverse glass mirror paintings in China after prints of his work. Thomas Coulborn and Sons previously sold an example titled ‘Duck Shooting’, dated circa 1820.

Chinese reverse glass paintings: were produced in Canton, for export to Europe during the 18th and early 19th Centuries, and the subject matter varied considerably depending on when they were executed during this period. The technique of ‘reverse’ painting was already well-known in Europe. In 1715 Jesuit missionary Father Castiglione arrived in Beijing and decorated the Imperial Garden, having won approval at the royal court under Emperor Yongzheng and Emperor Qianlong. He learned to paint in oils on glass and Chinese artists took up the technique which had not been used in China before Castiglione’s arrival.

In ‘The Decorative Arts of the China Trade: Paintings, furnishings and exotic curiosities’, Carl L. Crossman comments that: ‘[b]y the 1780s the copying of English and European engravings had come into vogue, along with the painting of Chinese landscapes and genre subject matter’ (Antique Collectors’ Club, 1991), p.203.

Generally, the glass used for such pieces was imported from England, despite China’s long history of glassmaking. In Ancient China, glass was used as a substitute for jade – a material for making decorative objects. The Emperor Kangxi had established a glass workshop within the Forbidden City by 1696, which produced many ritual utensils and ornaments, but no flat glass. Contemporary reports note that the Chinese attempts at making flat glass frequently resulted in a product which was ‘thin and brittle’ in contrast to the ‘thick and crystal-like’ glass produced in the West, which led to sheets of clear and mirrored glass being exported to China.