Claude, 'The Mill', 1648

The subject of this painting is only identified through an inscription on the tree-stump by the group of reclining figures in the centre. It is the marriage of Isaac and Rebecca from the book of Genesis (24: 1–67). The couple are dancing with tambourines, surrounded by others enjoying the festivities. The flat landscape and expanse of water stretching far into the distance are imaginary, but inspired by the landscape around Rome. Claude spent most of his working life in the city, and made frequent trips to sketch the surrounding countryside. The mill and a town in the background and naturalistic sky are common features of Claude’s paintings.

The picture, with its pair Seaport with the Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba, was painted in 1648 for Frédéric-Maurice, duc de Bouillon. Unlike its pair, this painting does not include the patron’s name, although the subject of a wedding may have interested the duke as he was happily married to Eléanor-Catherine de Bergh. A round tower appears in both paintings. Although commonly found in Claude’s works, this was an emblem of the duc de Bouillon – his family name was De la Tour d’Auvergne (the Tower of Auvergne). The paintings escaped seizure during the French Revolution despite Bouillon’s successor, Jacques-Léopold Charles, being imprisoned in 1794 and his property confiscated.

During the early nineteenth century, the English banker John Julius Angerstein purchased both paintings for the very high sum of £8,400. They were among the first works to be bought by the National Gallery in 1824 from Angerstein, whose house was near to where the Gallery now stands. Claude’s renown among later artists is shown by the fact that when J.M.W. Turner bequeathed to the Gallery his Sun rising through Vapour and Dido building Carthage, he made it a condition that they were hung next to Claude’s two paintings.

Another version of this composition also by Claude in the Galleria Doria-Pamphilj, Rome, is known as ‘The Mill’. The subject of the painting and identity of the patron would have been unclear to a seventeenth-century audience as this version has no inscription.