I’m starting today’s blog-post – Thursday, 30th July 2020 where I signed off last time —— with this same glorious rainbow-coloured sunbeam of heaven-sent light…
The view through my window. Sunday, 19th. July, 2020.
In the context of my previous post ‘The ‘Lost’ Portrait of Emily Brontë: Lost In Translation Only!’ —— published Sunday, 19th. July, 2020 —— I made mention that I didn’t have the ‘British Weekly’ to hand; the ‘British Weekly’ being the newspaper that Sir William Robertson Nicoll launched in 1886. The day after posting – late Monday evening, 20th. July, 2020 —— I chanced upon a ninety-seven year old newspaper cutting for sale on eBay for a fiver; not cut from the ‘British Weekly’ —— but from ‘The Times’…
A ‘Buy It Now’ heaven-sent gift!
If anything backs up my Quest for the Truth that the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ photogravure as featured in the ‘Woman at Home’ – was NO fake news back in 1894 or NOW – then this rare ribbon of antique newspaper is surely it!
Read Nicoll’s obituary in its entirety and it makes no sense at all that Journalist and Bookman, Sir William Robertson Nicoll —— would have been party to printing fake news.
Sir William Robertson Nicoll was Editor of the ‘Woman at Home’ as well as the ‘British Weekly’. He was also an eyewitness to the ‘lost’ portrait of Emily Brontë drawn by Charlotte…
Nicoll’s eyewitness account is highlighted here in blue —— reliably reprinted word for word in a 1981 edition of ‘Brontë Society Transactions’…
First Class service. Here by Wednesday morning, 22nd. July 2020. —— suitably protected in a secure cardboard casket!
This is ‘The Times’ obituary for Sir William Robertson Nicoll that came to me —— photographed in four sections for easier reading. Nicoll died on the 4th May 1923 —— aged 72.
I rest my case.
Posted just after midnight (BST) 30th July 2020.
I am not at all sure about the bonnet portrait – but that said, I don’t think Clement Shorter’s opinion should be trusted. I would love to know more about the bonnet portrait in the Bonnell collection. Who sold it to Bonnell? What was its provenance? Bonnell asked Shorter’s opinion before purchasing some images of the Brontes….maybe on this occasion Bonnell didn’t consult with Shorter. – or he did and Shorter later changed his mind ….but it would be interesting to know the story behind Bonnell’s purchase…
Good afternoon Liz,
Firstly, it’s a treat to receive a message from a genuine Bronteite who is not at all sure about the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ but openly says that they would like to know more, THANK YOU!
I agree it would be great to be able to ascertain the answers to all of your above questions, but alas the Bronte Society don’t elaborate on their version of the ‘Bonnet Portrait’. In light of my discovery of a much earlier pencil version, it is my considered opinion that theirs is now an out-of-date justification that is curatorially remiss. It shouldn’t be acceptable for them to keep on spouting Shorter’s tired one-liner – when NO evidence exists on the table to support his/their dismissal of the Bonnell version of the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ in their custodianship – let alone against the pencil version.
The ‘Bonnet Portrait’ doesn’t asked to be liked but to be impartially understood, so thank you.
Best regards, Melanie
There are three pastel crayon portraits in the Bonnell collection which appear to be related – Bonnell 66, 67 and 68. Bonnell left his own typed catalogue with the Bronte Museum. It may be worth trying to find out more about this set. There may be an impressed watermark on anyone of these drawings which could provide a date.- which would be a good place to start – I think anything that is from the Bonnell bequest is interesting because it was part of that collection..
Thank you Liz for your interest and helpfulness – and yes, 66, 67, and 68 are almost certainly by the same hand. I’m not sure how one would go about finding any answers to the ‘Bonnell Bonnet’ – as it is my experience that the Bronte Parsonage Museum has already officially rejected the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ drawing in writing – on the grounds that it has no provenance but also on “stylistic grounds” too. Perhaps, I should write to the Bronte Parsonage Museum once again and see if they can put something more helpful in writing about their own version of the Bonnet Portrait (68).
I see these lines of enquiry as separate. There was a case of a possible Bronte letter which I think Symington exposed as a forgery….There was some question as to whether this whole episode was designed to put Symington into a position of being recognised as an acknowledged expert in the field. I have wondered for a long time whether something similar happened with the Bonnet portrait in the Bonnell collection. If it i a forgery – that is interesting…. if it is genuine – that is also interesting. It may be just someone with an interest in the Brontes produced what they believed were three images of the Brontes but was mistaken. with the Bonnet portrait .? .They may have been sold to Bonnell at the time in good faith but later reconsidered by Shorter…..in any case….It is a line of enquiry which intrigues me. I would just like to know more about this set of drawings. There may be a bit more info in Bonnell’s own copy of his catalogue? An impressed watermark could provide a date…
…I think that it is plausible that Bonnell’s version of the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ is copied from the ‘Woman at Home’ reproduction that was published in 1894. Especially as Anne’s and Charlotte’s are copies from recognisable and authenticated portraits in the BPM collection. However, the same can not be said of the pencil drawing – or ”lost’ portrait’. The ‘Bonnet’ ‘type’ portrait predates the ‘Woman at Home’ reproduction by at least half a century. A significant new piece of the ‘Bonnet’ puzzle has only just come to light, yet not publicized on my website – but it proves beyond doubt that the exact ‘Bonnet’ ‘type’ portrait was painted by a listed English portraitist who flourished at the time the Brontes were living. So watch this space! I really appreciate your interest in the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ and anything that you can add to this unfolding story, that clarifies one way or t’other is a positive! Thank you.
I will be waiting for an update. I think a lot of Victorian portraits were not based on live sittings but other people’s work and not for any bad reasons… that was part of learning how to draw….look at the number of drawings/paintings that Charlotte and Branwell copied which are included in Art of the Brontes… IF something is not based on life it is not necessarily a forgery or mean that it is not of the Brontes. A forgery is a strong word and there may be other far more innocent explanations. It would be helpful to find the origin of the Bonnet portrait published in “Woman at Home” . An (or another) early bonnet portrait is interesting!
You talk such sense Liz, THANK YOU. That’s exactly how it is with the ‘Bonnet Portrait(s)’. The ‘Bonnet Portrait’ ‘type’ is clearly derived from a 1787 engraving of the ‘Wood-Nymph’ by Samuel Woodforde RA.
The latest ‘Bonnet Portrait’ yet to be revealed – is ‘identical’ not to Woodforde’s original or the 1787 engraving but to the ‘Bonnet Portraits’ that I write about and attribute to Charlotte Bronte – only this time round it is by a listed portraitist active at the time of the Brontes – and afterwards, but who died almost two decades before the publication of the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ reproduction in the ‘Woman at home’. The striking thing about the ‘new’ portrait circa 1840 to 1850 – is that the sitter bears a very strong facial likeness to Emily in Branwell’s ‘Pillar Portrait’. It is a very delicate, sensitive portrait.
I will be publishing a new post very shortly, like tomorrow or earlier! – not about the ‘new’ ‘Bonnet Portrait’ but about a portrait of young Queen Victoria. ‘Just for you’, I will add a picture of the ‘new’ ‘Bonnet Portrait’ so that you can judge for yourself. Again, thank you for your positive input.
Herbert Smith was sued by Colnaghi’s about a portrait of Queen Victoria over an issue which involved copyright. He had used the face of an image of Queen Victoria painted by Ross, but the rest of the portrait was done from life. (He borrowed some of the queen’s jewels to complete the portrait).
Herbert Smith also produced a portrait of Wordsworth based on someone else’s work and aged the sitter – presumably based on a guess.. This was produced after Wordsworth died.. As the portrait has been changed from the original and carried a date after Wordsworth;s death, without the paperwork, it seems possible that some would argue that it is not Wordsworth or worse – some attempt at forgery. These things are complicated. I am not at all sure that the bonnet portrait is of Emily but I am also not sure it isn’t. It may be of Emily but not based on a sitting.
Interesting info and viewpoint, thank you Liz.
Myself, I don’t have any doubt whatsoever where the pencil portrait is concerned; it’s a portrait of Emily drawn by Charlotte. There is actually a lot of very small and very faint information contained within the drawing (title, signature and date + minuscule writing) that I’m just not able to adequately capture but scientific analysis like the type seen on ‘Fake or Fortune’ would prove that this picture is absolutely genuine. There are several areas of very faint writing, something that it has in common with other artworks in ‘The Art of The Brontes’. The ‘true’ sticking point with the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ is preconception that’s totally based on personal feeling and false information; information that is so outdated – and is in my view a complete disservice to the Bronte legacy. It’s such a shame.