"Royal Academy.—Winter Exhibition. (First Notice.—English Pictures.)." Athenæum no. 3454 (January 6, 1894), pp. 21–22, notes that the picture had not been previously displayed or engraved; considers the design "decidedly Hogarthian," but the execution "slight" and proposes that "the artist never saw the church he depicted".
Old Masters. Exh. cat., Royal Academy of Arts. London, Winter 1894, p. 24, no. 98, identifies it in error as the "Wedding of Mr. Beckingham and Miss Corbett," his second wife, which took place in the Bishopsbourne Church in October 1739.
Austin Dobson. William Hogarth. London, 1902, p. 168, identifies the bride as Mary Cox, observing that the wedding, in January 1729, was at St. Benet's, Paul's Wharf.
Masters in Art: Hogarth 3 (1902), p. 39, lists the painting as from the collection of Mrs. Herbert Deedes.
Georgian England. Exh. cat., Whitechapel Art Gallery. [London], 1906, p. 92, no. 129, calls the bride Mary Cox of Kidderminster, the groom's first wife.
Austin Dobson. William Hogarth. New York, 1907, p. 197.
André Blum. Hogarth. Paris, 1922, p. 9, pl. II, notes that this is among Hogarth's earliest works.
B. C. K[replin]. in Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler. 17, Leipzig, 1924, p. 304, as in the collection of William Deedes.
Frank E. Washburn Freund. "William Hogarth and the English School." International Studio 85 (October 1926), pp. 45–47, ill., is of the opinion that the arrangement and grouping show the theater's influence; considers the figures "a little timid," but views only Gainsborough as his equal among the later English school regarding nuance and color.
G[eorge]. C. Williamson. English Conversation Pictures of the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries. London, 1931, p. 8, pl. XIV, insists that the church is St. Martin-in-the-Fields, "though either the east end has been altered" or the artist has taken liberties with the architecture; attributes the rendering of the background to "Hogarth's full talent for painting architectural detail".
G[eorge]. C. Williamson. Intimate Paintings of the Georgian Period. American ed. New York, 1931, p. 8, pl. XIV.
Art News 34 (October 26, 1935), ill. on front cover.
R. "Rundschau—Amerika—New York." Pantheon 16 (December 1935), pp. 415, 420, ill.
Janet Rosenwald. "Knoedler Exhibits Hogarth Paintings In Interesting Show." Art News 34 (November 16, 1935), p. 4, calls the men on either side of the couple and the lady in blue their parents; notes a "swiftness of line," seen in the two balcony figures, that is characteristic of Hogarth's engravings.
Sacheverell Sitwell. Conversation Pieces: A Survey of English Domestic Portraits and their Painters. London, 1936, pp. 14–15, 91, no. 12, ill., calls the groom Stephen Beckingham of Lincoln's Inn and the rector "Tho. Cooke," in accordance with the St. Benet's Parish Register; suggests that the man who leans on a walking stick may be Mr. Cox; notes that St. Benet's, Paul's Wharf was the location of the ceremony but accepts Williamson's identification of the church interior depicted as St. Martin-in-the-Fields; observes that the clothes, church, tombs, and wall tablets are contemporary.
James W. Lane. "Notes from New York." Apollo 25 (May 1937), pp. 280–81, ill.
Hermann W. Williams Jr. "A Conversation Piece by Hogarth." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 32 (February 1937), pp. 30–33, ill. on front cover, classifies the painting as a conversation piece and one of Hogarth's first group portraits; suggests that the interior is a modified view of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, but that the statue of St. Maurus alludes to St. Benet's; identifies the groom's father, Ralph Beckingham, on his left, the bride's father, Joseph Cox, on her right; foresees Hogarth's "satiric vein" in the figure of the clergyman, probably Thomas Cooke; considers the picture surely painted and admires the handling of the balcony figures; views the artist as already a master of nuance and color.
Andrew C. Ritchie. "Brilliant British Rebel: William Hogarth." American Collector 16 (January 1947), pp. 13, 16, 18, fig. 4, suggests the influence of Dutch seventeenth-century painting, comparing Hogarth's "monotonous horizontal line-up of heads" to Terborch's group portraits.
Millia Davenport. The Book of Costume. New York, 1948, vol. 2, p. 746, no. 2093, ill. (cropped).
R. B. Beckett. Hogarth. London, 1949, pp. 8, 24, 39, notes that while the date on the work is that of the wedding, the picture may have been completed the following year.
Frederick Antal. Hogarth and His Place in European Art. London, 1962, pp. 42–43, 90, 227 n. 48, pl. 27a, calls the depiction of a middle-class wedding scene with figures of actual people probably Hogarth's innovation; suggests that the closest continental comparisons are to Bernard Picart's engravings in J. F. Bernard's "Cérémonies et coutumes religieuses de tous les peuples du monde," though Picart's figures are not real-life portraits and are in a more traditional vein.
Gabriele Mandel. L'opera completa di Hogarth pittore. Milan, 1967, p. 89, no. 13, ill. and colorpl. V.
William Hogarth: A Loan Exhibition of Paintings, Drawings and Prints. Exh. cat., Virginia Museum. [Richmond], 1967, p. 17, no. 5.
Edith A. Standen in Masterpieces of Painting in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Exh. cat., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. New York, , p. 94, ill. (color).
Ronald Paulson. Hogarth: His Life, Art, and Times. New Haven, 1971, vol. 1, pp. 185, 224–26, pl. 84, finds no sense of a relationship between the married couple nor any psychological interest relating to the ceremony; discusses the limitations of conversation pictures.
"Collectors' Questions." Country Life 153 (February 22, 1973), p. 445.
100 Paintings from the Metropolitan Museum [in Russian]. Exh. cat., State Hermitage Museum, Leningrad. Moscow, 1975, pp. 111–13, ill. (color, overall and detail).
Joseph Burke. English Art 1714–1800. Oxford, 1976, p. 162.
Gianna Contini. I geni dell'arte Hogarth. Milan, 1976, p. 34, fig. 1 (color), suggests the work demonstrates an immaturity in the placement and gestures of the figures.
Jack Lindsay. Hogarth: His Art and His World. New York, 1979, p. 54.
David Bindman. Hogarth. New York, 1981, p. 36, fig. 19.
David Bindman. "Manners and Morals at the Tate." Burlington Magazine 129 (December 1987), pp. 819–20, fig. 37.
Elizabeth Einberg. Manners & Morals: Hogarth and British Painting 1700–1760. Exh. cat., Tate Gallery. London, 1987, pp. 73, 75, colorpl. 53, suggests that the man in black at the left may be the bride's father, Joseph Cox, attorney-at-law at Kidderminster, widowed in 1727, and that the lady in blue, standing apart, might represent her mother, thus explaining the carefully painted funerary tablet behind her; proposes that the neatly painted architecture is by an assistant; points out that the putti are an afterthought, that the left foreground originally showed a kneeling figure arranging the hassocks, which for some reason was painted out, and that the carpet may be a later attempt by the artist to introduce some interest into the foreground.
Mary Webster. William Hogarth: Dipinti, disegni, incisioni. Exh. cat.Vicenza, 1989, p. 73, no. 125, colorpl. I, fig. 125, calls the man behind the minister a lay secretary of the parish, the man in brown the bride's father, the man in dark green the groom's father, and the lady in blue to the far left the groom's mother; suggests that the elongated figures are Mannerist in derivation; proposes that the baroque putti are by an assistant.
Ronald Paulson. Hogarth: The 'Modern Moral Subject' 1697–1732. 1, New Brunswick, N.J., 1991, pp. 224–26, 370 n. 20, fig. 91, assumes the introduction of the putti was dictated by the commission; notes the contrast between them and the gallery urchins; mentions the recent discovery of a figure painted out of the left foreground; notes the strangeness of the wedding party and suggests that a thin line separates the painting from parody.
Neil McWilliam. Hogarth. London, 1993, pp. 48–49, ill. (color), calls it an early example of Hogarth's oils and suggests he had assistance with the architectural details; mentions the painted-out figure and proposes that the carpet was added later.
Sheila O'Connell in The Dictionary of Art. 14, New York, 1996, p. 637.
Jenny Uglow. Hogarth: A Life and a World. London, 1997, pp. 161–63, fig. 42, mentions the liberties taken by Hogarth depicting the new St. Martin-in-the-Fields rather than the actual venue and the presence of the mother of the bride who had died in 1727; comments on the liveliness of the urchins compared to the stiffness of the wedding party; notes the artist's reworking of the clerk, carpet, and putti, perhaps for the benefit of the patrons' tastes.
Robin Simon. Hogarth, France and British Art: The Rise of the Arts in 18th-Century Britain. [London], 2007, pp. 223, 294 n. 4, pl. 211, dates it about 1729–30; calls the interior imaginary, but notes that it is often identified as St. Martin-in-the-Fields.
Paula Bradstreet Richter in Wedded Bliss: The Marriage of Art and Ceremony. Exh. cat., Peabody Essex Museum. Salem, Mass., 2008, pp. 51, 177, colorpl. 13 (detail).
Katharine Baetjer. British Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1575–1875. New York, 2009, pp. 43–46, no. 19, ill. (color), figs. 36 (detail), 38 (detail of x-radiograph).