“A sleeper is an object that is undervalued at the time it is offered for sale. Experts that are on the look-out for sleepers at auction are sometimes called sleeper spotters. While some sleepers pass through auctions unnoticed, others are spotted by two or more parties and may make a spectacular price over estimate.” https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/glossary/

On Saturday morning, 29th. January 2022——I was delivered of a beautiful heavyweight tome——a 125 year old leather-bound edition of ‘The Woman at Home’ that’s taken years rather than months to arrive. Not because of any delay in dispatch by the seller——to the contrary in fact——but because so often these beautiful old illustrated annual editions are butchered for their plates and articles that are then sold individually.

I know this because I have two such articles——that singly cost more than this entire tome! So hats——nay bonnets off——to Cancer Research Shop online who kept and sold it so wonderfully intact. . . And what an impressive volume it is held in the hand——weighing in at just over five pounds——that’s 2.26796 kg!

I’m in awe of it——in reverence——because it feels like holding a big, beautiful, antique leather-bound Bible. . .

It’s a feeling I put down to the fact that the Editor-In-Chief of ‘The Woman at Home’ was Reverend Sir William Robertson Nicoll —— witness to the ‘lost’ portrait of Emily Brontë——in Haworth in 1879. His witness statement is available to read at the foot of this post. To fully appreciate Sir William’s interconnectedness with the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ —— please read this previous post as there’s an order; it’s ‘The Order of The Bonnet’——as in the way in which the ‘Bonnet’ reveals its secrets all in its own good time! http://somethingaboutdartmoor.com/2022/02/14/the-lost-portrait-of-emily-bronte-where-theres-sir-william-there-is-a-way/

Leafing through my ‘new Bible’ —— I was delighted to find an unexpected bonus; a black and white icon-sized image of an engraving of Queen Victoria after a miniature watercolour on ivory by Sir William Charles Ross. . .

The royal wedding day of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert was on the 10th. February 1840. Next to the engraving —— is a watercolour copy painted on ‘J Whatman’ watermarked thin card – that I attribute to the hand of Charlotte Brontë. . . 

In 1843, Charlotte’s and Queen Victoria’s paths crossed on the ‘Rue Royale’ in Brussels. Charlotte was in her second year at the Pensionnat Héger in Brussels – whilst the Queen was visiting her Uncle, King Leopold I of Belgium. Charlotte wrote home to Emily about her brush with royalty. . .

   “You ask about Queen Victoria‘s visit to Brussels. I saw her for an instant flashing through the Rue Royale in a carriage and six, surrounded by soldiers. She was laughing and talking very gaily. She looked a little stout, vivacious lady, very plainly dressed, not much dignity or pretension about her. The Belgians liked her very well on the whole. They said she enlivened the sombre court of King Leopold, which is usually as gloomy as a conventicle. . .”

Charlotte’s lasting impression of Queen Victoria is copied from Henry Thomas Ryall’s black and white engraving. In 1840, Ross’s original miniature was for Prince Albert’s eyes only —— hence Charlotte painted the Queen’s dress in ‘Anne Blue’; in Ross’s original miniature the Queen’s dress is red.

The painting has a very faint signature —— written diagonally bottom right; it is barely visible. . . 

There’s more about Charlotte’s lasting impression of Queen Victoria here:

http://somethingaboutdartmoor.com/2021/02/12/the-ingeniiousness-of-charlotte-brontes-lasting-impression-of-queen-victoria/ 

My reason for sourcing an entire copy of ‘The Woman at Home’ 1897 edition (it contains two other Brontë articles) —— was primarily for this particular article, “Mrs Gaskell’s House and Its Memories” featuring this “Pen-and-ink sketch by Charlotte Brontë”. . .‘The Art of the Brontës’ catalogue raisonné  —— queries the authenticity of the “Pen-and-ink sketch” on stylistic grounds but also because the sketch is copied from a print that’s apparently “not the type of print that usually attracted Charlotte“. Co-authors, Christine Alexander and Jane Sellars —— go on to state that “the provenance argues strongly for a Charlotte attribution” hence its inclusion in the official list. The fact that the “Pen-and-ink sketch” was once the property of Mrs Gaskell —— meant that it couldn’t be consigned to the “Dubious Attributions” section even though the authors clearly had their own ideas about its stylistic merit.

Gaskell’s The Life of Charlotte Brontë, published in 1857, was the first biography of Charlotte Brontë.

The authors also query the medium; the article in ‘The Woman at Home’ states that it is a “Pen-and-ink sketch” but ‘The Art of The Brontës’ states that the “illustration suggests watercolour”. They elucidate further —— “The tones suggesting the texture and shadow of the faces are especially close to those in which she used watercolour.”

The original “Pen-and-ink sketch” as featured in ‘The Woman at Home” —— is listed as “location unknown” in ‘The Art of The Brontës’.

All this is an example of connoisseurship in action that just goes to show the importance of provenance but also how incredibly restrictive it is if one happens to have a genuine ‘lost’ artwork by Charlotte Brontë that’s not safeguarded by provenance; the ‘Bonnet Portrait’ drawing has been tossed aside because it doesn’t have any provenance.

I have it in writing (as requested) from Brontë HQ in Haworth —— that the “Bonnet Portrait drawing of Emily Brontë” is officially unauthorised due to its lack of provenance —— however it was rejected on stylistic grounds too; a move I view as the Brontë Establishment’s attempt to put the final nail in the Bonnet Portrait’s coffin —— but ‘E M I L Y’ will not be silenced!!! Since that wholly unhelpful meeting in 2019 —— five more sleepers have come to help the cause. To this day, Tuesday 19th. April 2022 —— all three drawings and two watercolours are uninspected and unjudged by the Brontë Establishment.

This post features only three of them —— two pencil drawings and one watercolour (Queen Victoria).

This next pencil version of the figure on the right of Mrs Gaskell’s “Pen-and-ink sketch” —— is stylistically faultless; it hasn’t got a jot of provenance but it’s certainly got Charlotte’s meticulous hand written all over it. Indeed, it possesses ‘one’ outstanding stylistic idiosyncrasy that Mrs Gaskell’s version lacks. . .

Again, like the watercolour of Queen Victoria —— ‘The Ballad Seller” is on ‘J Whatman’ watermarked paper——Charlotte’s paper maker of choice. . .

‘The Ballad Seller’ is one of an inseparable ‘pair’ of portraits —— confirmed in writing by the art dealer who sold them separately online in 2020. . .

   “The Handsome Gentleman” and “Study of a Young Woman” do indeed look very similar. They were purchased in the same lot at auction. Whilst I cannot say for sure whether they are by the same hand, I would say it is highly likely, given their style and that they were both purchased together from the same source.” Sulis Fine Art

They were individually listed for sale; unattributed.

The other sleeper “The Handsome Gentleman” bears a marked likeness to Branwell Brontë’s alter ego ‘Alexander Percy’ as portrayed by Charlotte Brontë’s ‘unfinished’ watercolour featured here on page 143 in ‘The Illustrated Brontës of Haworth’ by Brian Wilks.

It’s such a pity that these three original artworks featured in today’s post have absolutely no provenance —— but then again if they did have provenance —— it’s unlikely that they would have been ‘lost’ in the first place!!! 

Being in a privileged position to microscopically examine all three featured artworks —— it’s tellingly obvious that they are drawn by the same hand that drew the ‘Bonnet Portrait’. . .

Figuratively speaking, the ‘Bonnet Portrait of Emily Brontë’ portrait ‘type’ has been unfairly distorted over a very long period of time —— effectively cancelled without any proof by five generations of Brontë governing bodies.

As the original drawing only recently came to light in 2016 —— one makes allowances for those in the past that unfavourably judged the ‘Bonnet Portrait of Emily Brontë’—— solely on the basis of these two photogravure reproductions. . .

However, the same can’t be said of today’s Brontë Establishment who are ‘blind’ and obstructively critical about the identity of the sitter —— despite the fact that her name is integrally written right through the original sketch from left to right —— in five, big, bold letters that spell-out the subjects identity as ‘E M I L Y’. . .

For clear evidence that identifies the same ‘signature’ technique in an authenticated sketch by Charlotte in the official collection —— please refer to this earlier groundbreaking post. . . http://somethingaboutdartmoor.com/2020/05/02/spelling-it-out-the-art-of-steganography-in-the-art-of-charlotte-bronte/

And so one begins to appreciate why the ‘Lost’ Portrait of Emily Brontë by Charlotte has escaped detection for such a very, very long time; it’s been sleeping for a hundred years plus . . .For the record. . .

In the light of the ‘Bonnet’ drawing —— I consider the way in which the official keepers of the Brontë legacy persist with their established misthought against the Bonnet Portrait of Emily Brontë——as a sin against the Brontë legacy. Sadly, their contradictory opinion has only become established through their ignorance in the absence of the original drawing.

Of course, the most telling evidence is ‘hidden’ microscopically in the pictures themselves; science like that seen on ‘[Fake or Fortune?]’ could prove beyond doubt that they are ALL by the same hand, that of Charlotte Brontë.

---

Sir William Robertson Nicoll’s witness statement from The British Weekly —— 5th. November 1896.

   “In the end of July, 1879, I paid a visit to Haworth and stayed the night at the Black Bull Inn, too closely associated with the memory of Patrick Branwell Brontë. . .On the second day I had an interesting interview with Martha Brown, the faithful servant who nursed all the Brontës and saw them all die. She lived for the most part in Ireland, but had a room in Haworth and paid occasional visits to her relatives there. She seemed for her station an intelligent and refined person, and was very ready to converse about the Brontës, for whom she had a warm love. . .She had all the Brontës’ works and a good many relics that Mr. Bronte had left her, but which she had sold some. One of the most interesting was one of the microscopical manuscript magazines in 32 mo. grey paper. She had once had a copy of the Poems by Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell, with an inscription by Emily Brontë, but had sold it for £5 and a new edition. There was also a good many drawings, by which Charlotte’s were much the most careful. There was only one rough sketch by Emily Brontë and Patrick’s drawing’s were unfinished. But the most precious of the whole, one of surpassing interest, was a pencil sketch of Emily Brontë by Charlotte, which was very clearly and boldly drawn, and that which Martha pronounced an excellent likeness. I endeavoured in vain to purchase it. . .

    “On Martha Brown’s death, which occurred sometime after, I endeavoured to procure some of her relics, and especially the drawing of Emily Brontë. What she left was divided among four sisters, with all of whom I communicated, but was unable to procure or even trace it.”