It’s affected the very eye that knows that the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ drawing is signed ‘C Bronte’ in the sitter’s left eye. Even afflicted by ‘Varicella Zoster Ophthalmicus’ —— my right eye can still see Charlotte’s minuscule signature through a jeweler’s eye-loupe. When one is still able enough to read —— authentication is as uncomplicated as that; unfortunately though my eyewitness account —— counts for nowt.

The searing, sudden nature of a full-on Shingles attack in the trigeminal nerve in the right-side of my forehead —— doesn’t compare to the long, slow burn of knowing that one is right about the authenticity of a long ‘lost’ Brontë portrait —— but isn’t able to prove it because the drawing came with no provenance. That said, there’s plenty of supportive evidence —— to say nothing of the presence of the artist’s micro-script signature, ‘C Brontë’; the smallness of it alone is so Charlotte!

‘The Establishment’ and ‘The Powers That Be’ —— are collective nouns for the organisations —— and the representatives therein —— that I’ve contacted to help verify the drawing’s authenticity. If I was to make an analogy between my efforts and the reception the drawing has received to date —— it would be this classic tale. . . 

It really ought not to matter if Charlotte’s drawing of her sister —— doesn’t appeal to the sensitivities of all but a few Brontëphiles; least not to the expert who judged it in person —— who deemed the drawing too “grotesque” to be by the hand of Charlotte —— and ‘God forbid’ a portrait of Emily! The expert’s opinion of the drawing was neither professional —— or impartial —— or helpful, however I’m glad I have it in writing (as requested!). . .

In light of my findings —— it evidently wasn’t good enough for said expert —— to lump the ‘Bonnet Drawing’ in with four other artworks in a gloomy room – and say that “stylistically” it’s not correct. Particularly as the drawing wasn’t handled —— or looked at under any form of magnification or bright light. Needless to say, my opinion of connoisseurship sunk to an all time low on Monday, 15th April 2019 —— and has remained at rock-bottom ever since.    

The expert’s dismissal of the drawing was not wholly unexpected as I do get the importance of provenance —— but the identity of the sitter as ‘EMILY’ ‘can’t be denied’ because it’s an integral part of the portrait. It’s a unique trait —— a sort of 19th century ‘WordArt’ before its time; that’s evident not only in the drawing —— but also in an authenticated artwork by Charlotte Brontë —— in the official collection in Haworth.

To be sure, “My Kindred” is a term of endearment used by Charlotte to describe her best friend Ellen Nussey; Charlotte has ‘secretly’ woven “My Kindred” through Ellen’s hemline —— in exactly the same way that she has cleverly disguised ‘EMILY’ as folds in the sitter’s cloak. . . 

It’s no surprise then I’m seeing red! —— especially having read the lengths ‘The Brontë Society’ is prepared to go to —— to secure the ‘Honresfield Library’ from ending up in a private collection (they’ve even asked the Government to step in) —— yet they don’t give a fig about what is almost certainly ‘The ‘Lost’ Portrait of Emily Brontë’ drawn by Charlotte —— or that it stays in a private collection! 

Charlotte’s other best friend was Mary Taylor of ‘The Red House’ in Gomersal —— who once said of Charlotte “She would study an engraving for a long time and could tell us much about it that we had not noticed.” The same could be said of me and the ‘Bonnet Drawing’. . .

This blog-post is a summing-up of a week in the life of a ‘Bonneteer’! —— starting with the remote, online auction of the ‘Bonnet Painting’. . . As I sat and watched the final countdown —— I thought surely the ‘Bonnet painting’ of Emily Brontë —— couldn’t possibly sell for less than what Professor Christopher Heywood —— originally paid for the painting in 2011? Alas, it sold for less than a third on the night, Sunday 23rd May 2021. Though I know —— that Christopher’s investment in ‘Emily’ can’t be gauged in terms of money. . .

It may have taken a decade for Christopher’s beloved portrait of ‘Emily’ to have seemingly depreciated overnight —— but that’s only in money terms; intellectually and spiritually the painting has been immeasurably enriched by Christopher’s ownership —— something no amount of money could buy – the buyer truly got a bargain. Professor Heywood has left his mark for posterity —— in the form of two ënlightened articles in ‘Brontë Studies’; articles that indelibly identify the sitter as ‘Emily Brontë’ —— in accordance with the timeworn inscription on the back of the painting. . .

As the virtual hammer silently fell —— I was left feeling deflated and sad for Christopher —— for all that the painting meant to him. Ever since Christopher’s passing in February, I’ve found it hard to keep even a flicker of interest in the ‘Bonnet’ alight. From my perspective, the remote sale of what was once Christopher’s —— sounded the final death knell for the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ in general —— but that was ‘yesterday’. . .

Within seconds of the auction ending —— a chain reaction occurred that reignited my fire:

1. Sunday 23rd May 2021 —— a ‘new’ ‘Bonnet Portrait’ dated ‘1855’. 

2. Monday 24th May 2021 —— a full on attack of Ophthalmic Shingles in my right eye.

3. Wednesday 26th May 2021 —— a newspaper article that made me see red for reasons I’ll explain further down!Of course, the fourth thing in this chain of happenstances is that Christopher’s painting was sold to an unbeknownst buyer —— who evidently thought enough of the likeness, the inscription on the back, and Christopher’s articles about the ‘Bonnet Portrait(s)’ —— to part with a substantial amount of e-cash. On quiet reflection, I think Sunday’s hammer price was no mean validation of the painting’s authenticity.

The painting was destined to be on the front cover of Christopher’s magnum opus, ‘Emily Brontë: Life, Mind and Art’ —— his last book that to my knowledge sadly remains unfinished. That’s how much he loved, valued and believed in the ‘Bonnet Portrait’; where Christopher was concerned it was never about how much he paid for ‘Emily’ – but about the painting’s authenticity —— and an exclusive green dust jacket!

From day two of our friendship – Christopher entrusted me with the knowledge that he was the owner of the painting, a confidence I kept until after his passing. Ours was a special and unique bond —— an alliance —— that can only be understood by the hundreds of emails that to’d and fro’d between us, indeed there’s a book in them; not about the portraits per se —— but because of them. They were our ‘twinnies’ —— Christopher’s pet name for them…As the virtual hammer fell on Christopher’s ownership of the painting, my screen automatically refreshed itself. Suddenly and unbelievably —— an icon-sized image of yet another ‘Bonnet Portrait’ flashed up – a suitably wistful version in a modern frame signed ‘J. W. Moore 1855’ —— to be auctioned at ‘Claydon Auctioneers’ on Friday 28th May 2021. With a reserve at £40 —— ‘Lot 1918’ was in my price range and attainable with luck!

In the moments of emptiness that followed the remote sale of Christopher’s ‘Twinnie’ – I suddenly found solace in the prospect of bidding for Lot 1918. It wasn’t only the subject of J.W. Moore’s version of the ‘Bonnet’ that spoke to me —— but the date that he created it. Charlotte Brontë died on the 31st March 1855 – the very same year as the date on the painting. . . Lot 1918’s timely appearance on Sunday —— gave me a sense of closing the gap —— the void —— that exists around the origin of the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ drawing. Of the eternal —— occasionally infernal —— yet ultimately irrefutable connection the drawing has with Charlotte and Emily Brontë because the ‘proof of the pudding’ is all there in minute detail in the Emily’s left eye. . .

The date ‘1855’ on the Claydon/Moore version certainly proves beyond doubt that the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ in all its versions – are not copies of the 1894 and 1896 photogravure. . . 

A line of ‘reasoning’ —— that’s been all too easily cited by the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ critics – nay haters! Indeed, it’s their stock answer for dismissing the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ outright —— along with “Clement Shorter said. . .”

What the hell did Clement Shorter actually —— truthfully know about the origins of the ‘Bonnet Portrait’??? Precisely nothing is the short answer! Indeed, Clement Shorter wasn’t even alive in 1855 – when J.W. Moore painted his version of the ‘Bonnet Portrait’.

It’s become apparent that where there are question marks hanging over Brontë portraits – Clement Shorter is invariably at the centre! Considering Clement Shorter was the henchman of arch Brontë villain, T. J Wise (T.J. Wise is mentioned in the Daily Mail newspaper article) – I find it odd why Shorter is held in such high esteem by the Brontë Society today —— and why his utterly baseless opinion about the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ even matters???

I digress. Back to Sunday’s auction. . .

“Why doesn’t the bloody ‘Bonnet portrait’ leave me be?” —— I blasphemously thought out loud as I clicked on the link to Friday’s auction! To use the ‘hand through the window’ scene in Emily’s ‘Wuthering Heights’ as a metaphor – that’s what it felt like! The ‘Bonnet Portrait’ literally haunts me —— nay taunts me —— and will not let go of its grip on me!

“Grrrrrrrrr —— go away!” I growled at the ‘Girl in a Bonnet’ —— but her large, melancholy eyes bored into mine. . .

Strange how the turn of an internet page had the power to turn the ‘Bonnet’ embers incandescent again —— thanks to a portrait ‘type’ that few recognise as ‘Emily Brontë’ —— and that on the day, Friday 28th May 2021 —— nobody wanted to buy save for me! No doubt there will be more about this latest ‘Bonnet’ —— as and when she arrives home.

Now to the newspaper article about the latest ‘lost’ Brontë hoard to come to light. . .

Anyone up to speed with the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ —— will hopefully understand why this article gets my goat! 

At the top of this blog is a menu header titled: ‘Emily_Bronte_In_The_Frame’ —— where there are plenty of pointers that more than suggest that the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ is an authentic portrait of ‘Emily Brontë’ drawn by Charlotte, yet as far as ‘The Establishment’ is concerned —— the portrait ‘type’ remains persona non grata. Indeed, they don’t give a damn if the drawing remains in a private collection! A second newspaper article in ‘The Guardian’ about the ‘Honresfield Library’ —— made me doubly smart! https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/may/28/priceless-bronte-manuscripts-could-be-lost-to-private-buyer-warn-experts

One line of my ‘Bonnet’ research —— relates to the significance of the ‘Gypsy-Straw’ type hat (as worn by ‘Emily’ in the ‘Bonnet Portrait’) in Samuel Richardson’s novel ‘Pamela’. I’ve highlighted ‘The Daily Mail’ newspaper cutting (rather fittingly in red!) – where it mentions the importance and artistic influence of ‘Bewick’s History of British Birds’ in the Brontë household – and how Charlotte even made mention of the very book in the opening chapter of ‘Jane Eyre’ —— at the start of the paragraph directly after ‘pages of Pamela’ underscored in blue here. . .‘Pamela —— or Virtue Rewarded’ by English writer, Samuel Richardson —— is the very book that gave rise to the popularity of the ‘Gypsy-Straw’ hat during the Romantic period, 1798 to 1837. Indeed, the Gypsy-Straw ‘look’ was made fashionable by the heroine of Samuel Richardson’s 1740 novel —— ‘Pamela’, hence the style of hat’s formal name ‘The Pamela Hat’. . .In chapter 19 of ‘Jane Eyre’ – the significance of the ‘Pamela Hat’ or “Gipsy-Straw” in Charlotte Brontë’s prose —— gets an actual name credit. . .The bit where she describes the “handkerchief under the chin” as “striped” —— perfectly describes the exact same handkerchief as seen tied under the chin in the ‘Bonnet Portrait(s)’. It’s obvious from these clues in Charlotte Brontë’s prose, that wannabe miniaturist Charlotte was well acquainted with the ‘Pamela Hat’ fashion —— as well as the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ as a portrait ‘type’ —— or how else did she write such an exact description of the ‘Bonnet’ handkerchief? She surely knew of it! I’m in no doubt at all —— that Charlotte also painted at least one of these ‘Bonnet Portraits’ too. . .As a portrait ‘type’ it’s clear that the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ per se —— is derived from a 1787 engraving of the ‘Wood-Nymph’ after the original by Samuel Woodforde R.A.. It’s true to say, Charlotte Brontë copied engravings —— but it’s also evident from a number of her pencil and watercolour studies in ‘The art of the Brontës’ (that are copied from known engravings) —— that she had a wont to make significant changes too —— thereby, affirming a degree of originality in some of her drawings and paintings. In my opinion —— words such as ‘slavish’ and ‘meticulous’ don’t exclusively apply to Charlotte’s modus operandi with a pencil (or paintbrush) – particularly in light of the obvious differences between the ‘Bonnet Drawing’ and this 1787 hand-coloured, stipple engraving of Samuel Woodforde’s ‘Wood-Nymph’. . .

In her third novel ‘Shirley’ —— Charlotte specifically mentions the hat ‘type’ ——— “gipsy-straw” again. . .The significance in ‘Shirley’ —— is that the “mistress” Charlotte refers to is the title character ‘Shirley Keeldar’ —— based on her sister, Emily.

Just as ‘Bewick’s History of British Birds’ was one of the biggest artistic influences in the Brontë household —— then why not Samuel Richardson’s ‘Pamela’ on Charlotte? —— for the reasons that I have highlighted and underscored. Particularly as there are obvious parallels to be drawn between the subservient roles of ‘Jane’ and ‘Pamela’ to their respective masters —— ‘Mr Rochester’ and ‘Mr B’.

All things considered —— it’s no wonder that Charlotte Brontë afforded ‘Pamela’ the first shout-out in Chapter One of ‘Jane Eyre’. I must say though, I didn’t arrive at the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ through reading Charlotte Brontë’s novels (or Samuel Richardson’s for that matter!) —— instead I arrived through reading Charlotte’s Art. . . The significance of how the ‘gipsy-straw’ bonnet —— got it’s formal name ‘Pamela Hat’ —— is the shaping force for today’s argument —— as I find it’s essential not to underestimate even the smallest of clues in Charlotte’s prose —— because so often they’re Charlotte’s biggest giveaways! Add to that, Charlotte Brontë’s specialism —— ‘The Art of Micro-Script’; a form of writing too small to be read with the naked eye but possible with magnification —— brings me to today’s conclusion. . .

That it’s utterly absurd to suggest that the ‘Bonnet’ drawing was drawn by anyone other than the person whose name is in the sitter’s left eye; ‘C Brontë’ it says —— in teeny-weeny micro-script writing.

I shall keep on trying to capture Charlotte’s tiny signature because I know the camera never lies —— I only need a more powerful lens. . .

To round off this long post, I shall finish with a reminder of Sir William Robertson Nicoll’s 1879 eyewitness account of the true lost portrait of Emily Brontë. His words in no uncertain terms —— do not describe Branwell Brontë’s portrait in the National Portrait Gallery —— that for too long has been purported to be the lost portrait seen by Robertson Nicoll. . .

Sir William Robertson Nicoll’s eyewitness account is accurately transcribed in this 1981 edition of ‘Brontë Society Transactions’ —— highlighted here in blue (and red). . .   

Sir William Robertson Nicoll was the Editor of the ‘Woman at Home’ and ‘The Bookman’ —— responsible for the publication of this hitherto unpublished reproduction of the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ —— which speaks volumes. . . 

---