Part One.

Recently, a lovely old timeworn book came my way, straight off the back of a lorry so to speak – its title, ‘Wuthering Heights Etc’…

Because of it, this post is dedicated to my workmate, Paddy – who knows I have a committed interest in a certain portrait of the writer of ‘Wuthering Heights’ – and so offered me first dibs on’t book! It so often seems – that some pre-loved things possess a will of their ‘own’ – in that the item somehow magically finds its new keeper rather than t’other way round——I believe it. 

The sage-coloured volume was in very acceptable, used condition——all bar one page; the frontispiece illustration was clean gone——carefully torn out! 

For some, the missing page might have come as a disappointment but not so for me; although I was slightly curious, as to which portrait of ‘Emily Brontë’ filled the gap in 1900? I had a fair inkling it could only be one of two – both of which on evidence are nowadays thought to be Anne Brontë!!! In the case of William Scruton’s portrait of ‘Emily’ – it IS clearly a copy of the left-hand figure in Branwell’s ‘Pillar Portrait’ – which is undoubtedly, Anne Brontë. 

As Branwell’s famous ‘Pillar Portrait’ in the National Portrait Gallery wasn’t discovered until 1914 – I concluded that the missing frontispiece could only be from an engraving of the right-hand figure in Branwell’s family group portrait, formally known as the ‘Gun Group’. 

Ellen Nussey, Charlotte’s closest friend, identified the R/H figure in the ‘Gun Group’ engraving – as Anne Brontë. By 1920 – Shorter had come round to that same conclusion too, that the ‘Profile Portrait of Emily Brontë’ in the National Collection is Anne Brontë, but Shorter’s ‘authority’ seemingly only counts when t’argument suits ‘the powers that be’! I think all the confusion about the ‘Profile Portrait’ of ‘Emily’ just goes to show that if only literary critic, Clement Shorter – had stuck to his discipline – things may have turned out differently for the ‘Bonnet’! ‘No matter’, I feel certain that the ‘Bonnet’ WILL get there in’t end!

Meanwhile, The ‘Profile Portrait’ in the National Collection – continues to lay claim that it is the only individual portrait of ‘Emily Brontë’. The fragment came to light in 1914 – atop Rev. A.B. Nicholls’ wardrobe in Ireland after his death in 1906; The Rev. Arthur Bell Nicholls being Charlotte Brontë’s widow. 

And ever since 1914 – the identity of the sitter has been disputed; is it a portrait of Emily? – or a portrait of Anne? 

One thing that is absolutely certain, the ‘Profile Portrait’ could never be described as a boldly drawn pencil sketch by Charlotte – which is precisely how Sir William Robertson Nicoll described the ‘lost’ portrait of Emily Brontë – that he alone witnessed in 1879…

“… In July, 1879, I paid a visit to Haworth and had an interesting interview with Martha Brown, the faithful servant who nursed all the Brontës, and saw them all die. She possessed many relics of the famous sisters which had been given her by Mr Brontë. Among them was the pencil sketch of Anne Brontë by Charlotte Brontë, which, however imperfect in drawing, is described by at least two who knew her well as an unmistakable likeness…. I purchased it on Martha Brown’s death from one of her sisters…. I deeply regret that I cannot add a portrait of the greatest genius among the sisters, Emily Brontë. Martha Brown possessed a very clearly and boldly drawn pencil sketch of Emily by Charlotte, which I in vain endeavoured to purchase. After her death, what she left was divided among four sisters, with all of whom I communicated without succeeding even in tracing the picture. …”
William Robertson Nicoll – ‘The Bookman’ Volume 1, Hodder and Stoughton, November, 1891 p. 63

https://brontesisters.co.uk/ is a great resource of well-researched information – much more detailed than anything I write here. It a website for anyone with a keen interest in Brontë portraiture and ‘The Brontë Story’ as a whole.

https://brontesisters.co.uk/Lost-Portrait-of-Emily.html

https://brontesisters.co.uk/Portraits-of-Emily-Bronte.html

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

https://brontesisters.co.uk/Scruton’s-Portrait-of-Emily.a.html

Returning to the missing frontispiece in the sage-coloured, paint-splattered book…

Perhaps its original keeper, ‘Dorothy Lesceline Verdou’ – decided to carefully remove the ‘only portrait ever made of Emily Brontë’ so she could frame ‘Emily’ and hang her on her wall – because in 1901, a portrait of the writer of ‘Wuthering Heights’ – was a prized possession indeed – even if it was only a print from a sage-coloured edition titled, ‘Wuthering Heights Etc’.

There’s another book – a heavy, brown, leather-bound volume, called the ‘Woman at Home’, that contains another reproduction of a portrait of Emily Bronte – only this time by sister, Charlotte…

‘As fate would have it’, by 1900 – the 1894 ‘Bonnet’ portrait photogravure reproduction in the ‘Woman at Home’ – titled “EMILY BRONTË. From a painting by Charlotte Brontë, hitherto unpublished.” had been rubbished and thrown out by Clement Shorter – yet not one scrap of evidence has ever materialised to support his damaging words…

    “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.”.  Clement Shorter ‘Charlotte Brontë and Her Circle’ (1896). Shorter’s use of the word ‘known’ is subjective – made up, indeed entirely SPURIOUS!

Then, in not so many words, C.W Hatfield repeated Shorter in the 1932 Bonnell Catalogue. Item 69… And so Clement Shorter’s entirely spurious opinion became dyed-in-the-wool – regarded to this day by ‘the powers that be’, as holy writ! Yet, not one shred of evidence exists against the ‘Bonnet’ – it was all hearsay back in Shorter’s time as it is to the present day——30th July 2019. 

In defiance of the ‘Shorter Supporter’s Brigade’, the B/W photogravure reproduction of the ‘Bonnet’ portrait – as featured in the ‘Woman at Home’ – continues to dominate national newspaper articles relating to the novelist and poet…

Even ‘BBC Bitesize’ – the BBC’s free online study support resource for school-age students in the U.K. – uses the ‘Bonnet’ portrait of Emily Brontë to illustrate ‘Love and Friendship by Emily Brontë’…

Where’s the rhyme or reason to this double-standard hypocrisy I wonder? 

The question mark that’s been left hanging over the ‘Profile Portrait’ for more than a century – is seemingly ‘best left’ – conveniently blowing in the wind by ‘the powers that be’. A conspiracy of silence——that way the disputed, yet undeniably much-loved pretender, stays in situ for another century! But not in this collection…

By 1906, publisher, William Heinemann – decided to omit a frontispiece altogether from a delightful volume titled, ‘Poems of Emily Brontë’. A sensible precaution in light of the confusion caused by Shorter’s self-appointed ‘authority’ on Brontë portraiture.Arthur Symon’s introduction to this small volume of Emily’s poetry – is a must-read for any Emily Brontë fan. 

Quite why Sir William Robertson Nicoll’s professionalism as editor of the 1894 ‘Woman at Home’ gets rejected in favour of Shorter’s word, never seems to cross the minds – or consciences – of the ‘Shorter Supporter’s Brigade’! 

On one side, there’s Clement Shorter who by association with convicted fraudster, T.J. Wise – has a permanent stain on his character over his involvement in Wise’s wheeling and dealing of ill-gotten Brontë manuscripts.

While on t’other side, there is Sir William Robertson Nicoll – a consummate all-round professional with a reputation that can only be described as, copy-book. He was knighted in 1909 for his literary work and long-term support of the Liberal Party. In 1921, he was awarded the ‘Order of the Companions of Honour’——motto ‘In Action Faithful and in Honour Clear’ – nuff said!  

Those that give the official thumbs down to the ‘Bonnet’ portrait – are never able to expand why Shorter’s word is favoured over Robertson Nicoll’s. Hence, one can only deduce that in agreeing with Shorter – they are broadly saying that Robertson Nicoll, as editor of the ‘Woman at Home’ went ahead and printed a complete and utter lie——FAKE NEWS to use today’s parlance. 

Do ‘the powers that be’ ever stop to consider that when they dismiss the ‘Bonnet’ print in the ‘Woman at Home’ as ‘FAKE NEWS’ – they impugn William Robertson Nicoll’s reputation as editor. They ‘can’t’ have it both ways——and all their own way – yet have for more than a century! 

Sir William Robertson Nicoll was an early president of the ‘Brontë Society’; he had a keen interest in Brontë matters. I utterly fail to see – why an honorable gentleman like Sir William Robertson Nicoll – would have been party to creating FAKE NEWS. I suspect the ‘Bonnet’ portrait in the ‘Woman at Home’ was published in a final effort to throw a light on his search for the ‘lost’ portrait that he’d seen fifteen years earlier in Haworth. —— An effort not dissimilar to when someone sticks a photograph of a much-loved pet that’s gone missing on a lamppost – in the desperate hope that someone will recognise it and know of it’s whereabouts. It’s an argument that makes sense.  

Another non-fan of the ‘Bonnet’ portrait REPRODUCTION is apparently, Ellen Nussey – who like Shorter – gets ‘quoted’ again and again…

One can read about Ellen Nussey’s portrait here, https://brontesisters.co.uk/Photo-of-Charlotte-Bronte.html

I have been told by ‘the powers that be’ that Ellen Nussey didn’t think that the ‘Bonnet’ reproduction in the ‘Woman at Home’ was a portrait of Emily Brontë——SO!

Ellen Nussey NEVER saw the clearly and boldly drawn pencil sketch that I, and Christopher Heywood, have identified as the ‘lost’ portrait – as seen by William Robertson Nicoll in 1879. Her opinion was based purely on a b/w print in the ‘Woman at Home’. I’m in no doubt at all that Ellen Nussey would have immediately recognised Charlotte’s hand had she seen the original drawing!

The ‘Bonnet’ reproduction appears to be a copy of a copy – quite possibly an artist’s impression of a copy of the clearly and boldly drawn pencil sketch of Emily by Charlotte – seen  by William Robertson Nicoll at Haworth, in 1879. A book titled, ‘The Letters of Annie Swan’ features a frontispiece by Robertson’s Nicoll’s wife, Catherine; did she have a hand in the ‘Bonnet’ portrait reproduction in the ‘Woman at Home’ I wonder? The caption beneath the frontispiece suggests that Catherine Robertson Nicoll was not averse to copying the work of other artists…

The nearest original version of the ‘Bonnet’ portrait featured in the ‘Woman at Home’ – is the red conté crayon version that is in the Brontë Parsonage Museum collection——as featured in an article by Christopher Heywood in Volume 3, Number 3, ‘Bronte Studies’ – July 2018. 

In all, there are three such portraits in the Brontë Parsonage Museum collection——numbers, 67. 68. and 69. as listed in the ‘Bonnell Catalogue’. The portraits are all executed in red conté crayon – all are unsigned but appear to be by the same hand. They came from the estate of Henry Houston Bonnell. Two feature genuine portraits of Anne and Charlotte – but it’s only Emily’s portrait that is deemed as fake without proof. All three portrait types – of Charlotte, Anne——and Emily – are widely reproduced in print to this day. 

Interestingly, a portrait of Emily Brontë by Charlotte that came up for auction in 1933 at Sotheby’s – had been reproduced, “a photogravure of the same, proof;”…

I conclude that the argument AGAINST the ‘Bonnet’ portrait – is an argument of convenience, influenced squarely by the opinions of individuals who are long dead. Neither Clement Shorter or Ellen Nussey saw the ‘lost’ portrait——so what did either of them know about the origins of the ‘Bonnet’ portrait in the ‘Woman at Home’? precisely nowt!

Recently, one rather high-handed art expert I’ve met – commented that she thought the style of the ‘Bonnet’ drawing, “grotesque”. She couldn’t even be asked to look at the drawing——as in hold it – or look at it under any form of magnification – or bright light——so assured is she of HER authority; an authority that she perceptibly didn’t like challenged. ‘Luckily’, I’d thought to take along my own trusty magnifying glass to our meeting – but alas my offer to lend it – was declined.  I say to that expert – go reference ‘The art of the Brontës’ – to see a large collection of artworks in the “grotesque” style by Charlotte Brontë – if that’s what YOU so wish to call it! No names, no pack drill!!!

In light of the fact that it was Sir William Robertson Nicoll who witnessed the ‘lost’ portrait when he visited Martha Brown, in 1879 – I know without a shadow of doubt who’s word I hold true.

Sir William Robertson Nicoll described the ‘lost’ portrait of Emily Brontë – as a “clearly and boldly drawn pencil sketch” by Charlotte; NEVER, EVER——as a fragment of a group portrait by Branwell, as in the oil on canvas that hangs in the National Portrait Gallery and purports to be the ‘Lost’ Portrait. ‘Never mind’ either, that on evidence it’s most likely a portrait of Anne!

So you see, I really don’t care about the empty space left by the missing frontispiece…

 

---

Part Two.

A copy of a portrait by George Romney of Emma Hamilton?

Another reason cited by Brontë HQ in Haworth – to reject the ‘Bonnet’ portrait ‘type’ in general – is that the ‘Bonnet’ is apparently a copy of a George Romney painting of Emma Hamilton. It isn’t.

It was a pleasure to meet Principal Curator, Ann Dinsdale – but alas she too looked upon the ‘Bonnet’ drawing in an unfavourable light…

On my return from Haworth, I determined to dispel any Romney/Hamilton association with the drawing once and for all. So I contacted Alex Kidson, author of the George Romney catalogue raisonné, for his expertise and advice on the matter. With absolutely no ado he was most agreeable and helpful, “…to me you are justified in discounting the idea that it has anything to do with Romney.”  I ask, could it be put any plainer – or more authoritatively – than that? 

Alex Kidson also brought to my attention another ‘Bonnet’ portrait by an artist called, Thomas Stewardson. Stewardson’s portrait is of Mrs Jane Romney – George Romney’s future daughter-in-law. The portrait was commissioned by Romney’s son and emerged from Romney family ownership at auction, in 1894! Whereupon it proceeded to become mis-attributed in the years that followed as a painting by Romney of his wife Mary.

Mr. Kidson advised that Stewardson’s portrait of Mrs. Jane Romney …“could provide some element of an explanation for a Romney connection.” 

What flagged up for me – is the auction date ‘1894’. Stewardson’s portrait remained in a private collection until 1894 – so it simply wouldn’t have been feasible for the ‘Bonnet’ portrait photogravure reproduction in the 1894 ‘Woman at Home’ to have been ‘copied’ from Stewardson’s portrait of ‘Mrs. Jane Romney. Please click on the link to see Stewardson’s portrait. The auction took place – 24-25 May 1894 – and the ‘Woman at Home’ was published that July.  Besides, the clearly and boldly drawn pencil sketch of the ‘Bonnet’ portrait has its own date – for the year, 1844.

I rest my case for the time being – and trust that something WILL turn up——because Truth has a way of coming out eventually. 

   “It is proposed to establish a Bronte 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   

I have a gut feeling, that Sir William Robertson Nicoll once touched the drawing that I now champion… A big gun from ‘Brontë HQ’ recently advised me, “…I am afraid that this is one of those cases which must be allowed to rest.”

I don’t agree. 

---

---