Curiouser and curiouser – NOT spuriouser and spuriouser; The ‘Bonnet’ portrait of Emily Brontë by Charlotte Brontë continued…

http://www.brontesisters.co.uk/The-Profile-Portrait-Emily-or-Anne.html

For more than a century, the ‘Bonnet’ portrait of Emily Brontë – has been unfairly dubbed as an “entirely spurious” portrait.

It was literary critic Clement Shorter – who coined the term “entirely spurious” even though he had no evidence whatsoever to write-off the photogravure reproduction in the ‘Woman at Home’… 

In Shorter’s day – there was ONLY the illustration – NO original portrait to go on – so it’s easy to understand how ignorance prevailed more than a century ago – but not so today – by those that persist on quoting him in the face of plausible new evidence. Anyone would think Shorter’s term “entirely spurious” had been written in blood rather than plain ink – as a curse – that must be unquestionably obeyed. I for one don’t subscribe to it.

Clement Shorter died in 1926 – the same year that Henry Houston Bonnell died; Bonnell was a serious collector of Brontëana – who bequeathed his large, impressive collection to the Brontë Society. Among those items bequeathed, was an original drawing in red contë crayon – listed on page 23 of The Brontë Society’s official ‘Catalogue of the Bonnell Collection in the Brontë Parsonage Museum – Haworth 1932’ as – “A spurious portrait of “Emily Brontë” which was reproduced in “The Woman at Home” July, 1894, p.285. Artist unknown.”.

The red conté version of the ‘Bonnet’ portrait has remained in the BPM – largely unseen since 1932 at least – indeed ‘lost’ to all intents and purposes – until it appeared in July’s issue of ‘Brontë Studies’ – 2018 – in an article by lead ‘Bonnet’ champion – Christopher Heywood.

I think if Clement Shorter, Henry Houston Bonnell and ‘lost’ portrait witness – Sir William Robertson Nicoll, were alive today – they would be as keen as they ever were to determine the origin of the photogravure reproduction in the 1894 ‘Woman at Home’…

      “It is proposed to establish a Brontë Society… The chief desideratum is the excellent pencil sketch of Emily Brontë, drawn by Charlotte, which was in the possession of Martha Brown, the old servant of the family, and is now lost. I saw it thirteen years ago, and vainly endeavoured to purchase it. I have vainly endeavoured to trace it since.” William Robertson Nicoll, 1893.

…especially in light of the fact, there are four other original versions of the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ that have come to light since their day…

1. A clearly and boldly drawn pencil sketch – on J Whatman paper – that’s full of cryptic clues and miniscule micro-script.
2. A watercolour painting with a miniscule date for 1837.
3. A watercolour miniature. Charlotte had ideas of becoming a miniaturist before becoming a novelist. 
4. A Watercolour painting attributed to John Hunter Thompson——Branwell Brontë’s studio companion – now in a private collection. “In a handwriting resembling Charlotte’s, an inscription on the back of the ‘Bonnet’ portrait names the sitter as ‘Emily Bronté | Sister of Charlotte Bronté | Currer Bell’” from an article by Christopher Heywood, Brontë Studies Vol 43, 2018 issue 3. ‘Charlotte’s Copies of Emily Brontë’s Bonnet Portrait’ 
5. A drawing in red conté crayon – bequeathed to the Brontë Parsonage Museum by Henry Houston Bonnell after his death in 1926. It is listed on page 23 under ‘PORTRAITS’ – in ‘The Catalogue of the Bonnell Collection’ as item 69 – “A spurious portrait of “Emily Brontë” which was reproduced in “The Woman at Home” July, 1894, p.285. Artist unknown.” 

The Bonnell Catalogue also lists two other red crayon drawings in its portrait section, copies of –

• “67. Richmond’s Portrait of Charlotte Brontë.”
• “68. Charlotte Brontë’s drawing of Anne Brontë.”

Versions of all three drawings in the BPM ‘Bonnell Collection’ – nos 67, 68 and 69 – have all been reproduced in print – which is telling in itself, as reproductions of all three entries – were sold in a lot at Sotheby’s in 1933.In defiance of its entirely UNFAIR and UNPROVEN ‘entirely spurious’ tag – The ‘Bonnet’ portrait goes on being reproduced as illustrated by the newspaper cuttings at the top of this post. The irony of this year’s bicentenary celebrations to mark Emily Brontë’s birth on the 30th. July 1818 – is that the real headliner never got reported. It should have read – ‘THE LOST PORTRAIT OF EMILY BRONTË – FOUND?’ Pending scientific analysis of course – which would remove the need for the question mark permanently.  

William Robertson Nicoll predeceased both Shorter and Bonnell; he passed away on the 4th May 1923. So none were around to bid for a small portrait of Emily Brontë drawn by sister Charlotte – when it came up for auction at Sotheby’s – on Monday, 18th December 1933…

The portrait sold for 30 shillings to a buyer called, ‘Halliday’ – which was a generous bid considering the 1930’s Great Depression. It’s easy to see how without Bonnell, Nicoll or Shorter – no longer around – the portrait once again slipped into obscurity without trace.

Of course – there is nothing to say that the ‘Bonnet’ pencil drawing and the drawing sold at Sotheby’s are one and the same portrait – but commonsense tells me that they ARE – because a “photogravure of the same” was also sold in lot 115. ———And there’s only ever been one reproduction of a portrait of Emily by Charlotte – and that is the photogravure illustration in the ‘Woman at Home’ known as the ‘Bonnet’ portrait; really it’s a complete no-brainer!

William Scruton’s portrait of Emily – is in fact Anne Brontë. Click link to read why Scruton’s portrait IS Anne.   

In the spirit of the other ‘lost’ portrait – the red conté crayon ‘Bonnet’ portrait tucked away in the Parsonage in Haworth – symbolist artist and fellow BRONTËite and BONNETite Yulia Pankova from Ottawa – has sent me a most beautiful, drawing as a gift. It portrays ‘Emily’ staring out across windswept Haworth Moor towards the Light on the horizon. Yulia tells me she has even hidden some secret letters somewhere in the soft red lines of the drawing – for me to decipher… 

———Speaking of sounds – there have been unquiet rumblings from the quiet earth. Otherworldly noises that I imagine are Henry Houston Bonnell, William Robertson Nicoll – and even ole Shorter – all turning in their graves at the apathy of those ‘today’ – that are content to let be; say nothing, do nothing and hope the ‘bee in the bonnet’ – that is the ‘Bonnet’ portrait – will simply go away again. Of course – without provenance ‘Emily’ can’t return from whence she came – she can only go on and WILL…

Why those that I have contacted in authority on the subject of the genuine nature of the ‘Bonnet’ drawing – prefer to take the word of Clement Shorter – face value, no questions asked – I really can’t imagine? Their reasons are never forthcoming other than “Clement Shorter said…”!!! 

“The supposed portrait which appeared in The Woman at Home for July 1894 is now known to have been merely an illustration from a ‘Book of Beauty,’ and entirely spurious.”  Shorter knew no such thing! 

——Essential reading about the sort of ‘gentleman’ Clement Shorter was; read here and here. 

Yes, the ‘Bonnet’ drawing has no provenance – but that should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the photogravure that appeared in the ‘Woman at Home’ in 1894 – clearly states beneath it – that the reproduction of the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ is from a portrait of Emily Brontë by her sister, Charlotte. Sir William Robertson Nicoll – was the Editor of the ‘Woman at Home’ in 1894 – that featured the ‘Bonnet’ portrait photogravure reproduction.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the statement printed beneath the photogravure reproduction is false. 

Sir William Robertson Nicoll was an eminent scholar – a Christian gentleman – a collector of ‘Bronteana’ – and a true friend to Martha Brown. As Editor of the ‘Woman at Home’ in 1894 – he was surely better placed to state facts – and the truth therein – rather than the spurious statement made by Clement Shorter – which continues to be regarded as holy writ to this present day; there is something very wrong somewhere in all this. An interminable situation that keeps a genuine portrait of Emily Brontë by her sister Charlotte, permanently in the dark; but not if I have anything to do with it!

⇐ go LEFT! There are other ways. 

I know who I take my lead from——Sir William Robertson Nicoll. I have every faith in his integrity – and in his professionalism as Editor of ‘The Woman at Home’. Oh, and from the artist and sitter. 

Because I have not been able to source any references regarding the presence of ‘hidden’ micro-script numbers in the art of the Brontes – one must assume that this is a practice by all the Bronte siblings hitherto undiscovered———until now.

“It is proposed to establish a Bronte Society… The chief desideratum is the excellent pencil sketch of Emily Bronte, drawn by Charlotte, which was in the possession of Martha Brown, the old servant of the family, and is now lost.” I saw it thirteen years ago, and vainly endeavoured to purchase it. I have vainly endeavoured to trace it since.” 
William Robertson Nicoll, 1893.

PS…

One of the three newspaper articles – featuring the ‘Bonnet’ portrait – free to read online – 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/21/emily-bronte-strange-cult-wuthering-heights-romantic-novel

---

Ever a work in progress til the Truth will out – updated on the 11th. June 2019. 

---

Some more ‘Brontëana’…

http://somethingaboutdartmoor.com/2018/09/30/emily-bronte-three-portraits-one-face/

Emily Bronte: The ‘Lost’ Portrait.

Heading for Haworth…