Carved elm, oil gilt, with open mouth and flowing mane, formerly mounted on the bow of a ship.

In her article ‘Ship carvers in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Britain’ in ‘Sculpture Journal’, Erica McCarthy suggests that there are differing opinions regarding which wood was predominantly used for the carving of figureheads. McCarthy explains that P. N. Thomas, in his book ‘British Figurehead & Ship Carvers’, claims that: ‘in the seventeenth century, elm was the wood of choice for the carver. Elm was presumably used as it is malleable and because its grain structure makes it resistant to splitting. Elm successfully resists decay when kept wet; however, as L. G. Carr Laughton points out, elm, ‘when alternately wet and dry soon becomes the consistency of putty’ and it was, therefore, a poor choice for this particular type of carving, and was partly responsible for the ephemerality of these sculptures’ (Erica McCarthy, ‘Ship carvers in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Britain’ in ‘Sculpture Journal’, 24.2, 2015, p.181).

In the early eighteenth century, Laughton states that oak was used more regularly, suggesting that this lion was more likely to have been made in the seventeenth century. McCarthy notes that: ‘[o]f the 60 figureheads in the collection of the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich that have had their wood type identified, 51 are pine and the remainder are elm or a combination of hard and soft wood’ (ibid, p.181).

The ornamentation and decoration of large war ships was intended to demonstrate the political and the naval power of the country and its ruling monarch. Consequently, war ships were used to assert the strength of a country to its enemies, and were symbols of power as well as being fighting ships.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the lion was the standard figurehead for lower-ranking Royal Navy warships, symbolising power, speed and aggression. The National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, London has a polychrome-painted figurehead in their collection which depicts a heraldic crowned lion, dated circa 1720. Their website states that it: ‘is a rare survival of a standard Royal Naval lion figurehead from a small warship probably of the fourth or fifth rate. Such lion figures were the standard figureheads of all Royal Naval ships which bore them and were not of a size to warrant an individual design, as was usually the case with first-, second- and (more variably) third-rates. They were also standard in other European navies allowing for local differences of design. This is one of only two surviving British examples: the other, which is larger and probably a little later, supports the gable of the Red Lion Inn at Martlesham in Suffolk. There is an older, probably 17th-century example in Sussex, but in poor condition and of uncertain origin.’ (Object ID FHD0088; wood; oil paint, 92 in x 20 in x 23 in x 180 kg, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London).

In ‘Ship Decoration 1630-1780’ Andrew Peters comments that, during the early years of the Commonwealth period, gilding to warships was not permitted – ‘presumably to conform with Cromwellian puritanical beliefs’ (Andrew Peters, ‘Ship Decoration 1630-1780’, Seaforth Publishing, 2013, p.99). However, during this period, ‘more than half of Britain’s total expenditure went on naval affairs’ (ibid, p.99). Whilst the lion was perceived to be a Royalist symbol, with the appearance of the figure of a cherub-like figure astride the back of a lion, blowing a trumpet, ‘such figures appear as attributes of Britannia, heralding her fame, having tamed the king of beasts (or perhaps Cromwell’s dominion over the royalist lion’. Peters continues: ‘[a]s an attribute of Britannia, the motif first appears on the Antelope of 1619 but did not become popular until the Restoration period, when it even found its way onto figureheads. Examples of this are the Coronation of 1685 and the Lion of 1670, where the lion figurehead has seated behind him a cupid-like figure holding onto his tail’ (ibid, p.101). Thus the lion continued to be used as a figurehead through the Commonwealth period. With the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, ship-carvers were employed to remove the Commonwealth insignia, and to reinstate the royal coat of arms and related imagery. This ‘heralded a magnanimous era of royal patronage to the arts’ (ibid, p.104). Peters notes that: ‘[t]he standard cost of carving a lion figurehead during this period stood at £40, with £12 to carve the king’s arms’ (ibid, p.103). Between 1693 and 1721, Grinling Gibbons held the position of Master Carver and Sculptor in wood to the crown. His duties included the carved work for state barges.

The term ‘rebuild’ was initially ‘generally considered to imply that the ship was dry-docked to replace her rotten timbers…, although it also provided the opportunity to lengthen or modify the shape of the hull to incorporate new developments in design. By the early eighteenth century, however, the term was little more than an administrative fiction to allow for the construction of a new vessel. The old ship would be dismantled completely, with any serviceable timbers (and carvings) reused in the production of what was essentially a newly built ship.’ (ibid, p.111). As a result, ship carvings were sometimes reused.

By around 1700, the decoration of naval vessels had reached its peak and the Royal Navy began the process of restricting ornamental carving around the bow and stern of a boat. Decoration on lower-ranking warships was curtailed in this period, while dispensations were sought for first-rate and second-rate vessels. As a result, it can be presumed that this figurehead was carved before 1700.