Printed in :

THE ATHENAEUM      No. 3310, APRIL 4, 1891    

 

THE PORTRAIT of CHATTERTON.

 

National Portrait Gallery Offices, March 26, 1891.

 

[Letter below written by George Schaf]

THE question of authenticity of Chatterton's portraits does not centre in the picture at the Guelph Exhibition, but in the earlier known engraving which appeared as a frontispiece to the life of Chatterton written by John Dix in 1837, and in the painting from which it had been taken.

 

The latter belonged to a collector, Mr. George Weare Braikenridge, F.S. A., of Bristol, who generously defrayed the cost of engraving the portrait, who was deeply interested in Chatterton's writings, and to whom Dix, the author, dedicated his volume. It is now the property of his son. On the engraving itself, by mistake of the writer, the portrait was stated to be in the possession of  "George Weare Brackenbridge, Esq. " [a simple typo, so it was in the possession of George Weare Braikenridge].

 

The engraving, done in stipple by R. Woodman, was effective and must have tended considerably to promote the sale of the book. 

 

The painting, as we now learn from a very opportune communication volunteered by Mr. W. Jerdone Braikenridge, of Bath (Athenaeum, March 14, p. 350), has been in the family since 1821, when his father purchased it from a respectable bookseller of Bristol, named W. Sheppard. This Sheppard had obtained it of George Burge, who eight or nine years earlier (in 1812) had received it from a person in whose house he then resided. It was Burge who first started the idea of its being a genuine portrait of Chatterton, and Dix fell in with the scheme.

 

Next in order, setting aside many tangled dates, may be taken the tardy confession of Mr. Deffett Francis of February last, in which he rather glories in the suggestion of a fraud than expresses any contrition for the long line of mischief that has ensued.

 

We cannot refuse to accept his statement that Parkman, a portrait painter and son-in-law of Burge, did make a copy (Mr. Francis is wrong as to the relative sizes) which he sent to Robert Southey. This copy must have been surreptitiously obtained at the time when the original picture was lent by Mr. Braikenridge for engraving purposes.

 

Southey was expecting it, as appears by his letter to Dix, referred to by Mr. Braikenridge, dated January 7th, 1837, in which he says, "I must beg you to present my thanks to your young friend for a picture which I shall value highly."  No thanks, be it observed, are tendered to Mr. Braikenridge, the real owner of the picture.

 

Mr. Deffett Francis afterwards states that Parkman received a most enthusiastic letter of thanks from Southey, together with a superbly bound copy of the whole of his works. These Parkman had actually shown to Mr. Deffett Francis.

 

Southey also writes to Dix, " You are quite at liberty to state that on first sight of your engraving I immediately recognized a resemblance to Mrs. Newton" (Chatterton's own sister). But throughout the whole correspondence, so far as I have been able to see, there is nothing to support any belief in Southey's family that Mrs. Newton had either given or bequeathed to Southey a portrait of her brother which, if true, must have been in existence before 1804, the date of her death. If such was the case, where is the picture now ? 

 

It appears strange that on the engraving in Dix's life the names of the engraver, Woodman, and the draughtsman, Branwhite, are mentioned, whilst the name of the painter, Morris, is entirely omitted. There could have been no uncertainty on this point, as the artist had signed and dated his work on the back of the coarse  canvas on which it was painted,  "A. Morris pinxit March 25th, 1762. "

 

On a line above this, again, may be read in rubbed and fainter characters, evidently a subsequent addition, the name "T. CHATTERTON."

Here we perceive the fraudulent insertion referred to by Mr. Deffett Francis and in Mr. Richard Smith's communication in 1838 to the Gentleman's Magazine. The word "pinxit" was misread "aged 13."

 

Engravers do not work direct from a painting. They require the intervention of a drawing, on a reduced scale, for translating the colours into black and white for their guidance.

 

In this case N. Branwhite was employed to copy Mr. Braikenridge's picture on paper, and in doing so he made various small deviations, such as treating the lower part of the figure more slightly, in vignette fashion, misunderstanding some of the folds of the coat, and ignoring the third button altogether.

 

This black and white drawing by Branwhite is no longer forthcoming. The engraver may have lived at a distance, and it was probably never returned. It is highly satisfactory, amidst such a combination of frauds, fabrications, misrepresentations, and trifling with credulity, to have lighted upon the principal picture, which had almost been lost sight of in the course of the general discussion.

 

Mr. Jerdone Braikenridge has, in the kindest manner, at my suggestion, brought his picture (which, after all, is no larger than the one belonging to Mr. Taylor) to London, and permitted me to examine the two pictures side by side.

 

The opinion which I had held from the first, that the Guelph picture was not likely to be more than sixty years old, was fully confirmed.

 

The Braikenridge one, although in excellent condition, bears all the natural indications of age, and might very well have been painted in 1762, the date inscribed on the back of the canvas. On comparing the two pictures, the

Braikenridge one is far superior as a work of art. It is evidently, whether representing Chatterton or any one else, a careful study of a boy's face, done from nature itself. The subtleties of modelling of the features are wanting in the

Guelph picture.

 

At the same time it must be admitted that the Guelph picture is very freely painted by a practised hand and with a full brush, but clearly by some one, perhaps hurried, who did not pause to study the minutiæ which I have

referred to. It is also remarkable that in the Guelph picture we find some of the points peculiar to the black and white drawing copied in the engraving, which confirms the idea that Parkman did his work in Branwhite's studio by connivance of Dix.

 

There cannot be the slightest doubt that this Guelph picture has been in the possession of Robert Southey, and that it was purchased at the sale of his effects by Miss Fenwick to give to Wordsworth. It has had in its brief career a succession of most distinguished owners.

 

Taken as a whole, the engraving in Dix's book does not accurately render the character of Mr. Braikenridge's picture. It is a darker and shorter face, with a less amiable expression. It is, comparatively speaking, more pugnacious.

The Guelph picture is altogether milder. The drawing of the ear in the latter is quite different, and the painting of the nostril, with crude red in the aperture, very weak.

 

With the exception of the insertion of the name of Chatterton on the back of Mr. Braikenridge's picture, evidently an afterthought, and not written in bolder characters than the artist's own name and date, which would be the case if Chatterton had really been the object in the painting, we have nothing tangible to favour a suspicion that the portrait was ever intended for Chatterton. It is said to have been a portrait-study of the artist's own son, and clearly, from the relative size and strength of the two written entries, the painter was more anxious to record his own name than that of Chatterton. The date, March 25th, is a distinguished one in the calendar, and may have been of special interest to the painter. Our best thanks are certainly due to Mr. Braikenridge for the frankness with which he has imparted information and referred to documents in his possession, and for the facilities which he has afforded for a careful examination of his picture.

[signed] GEORGE SCHARF.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Letter below written by Hugh Owen, F.S.A.]

About the year 1835 I had occasion to call upon Mr. J. Parkman, portrait painter of Bristol. Upon his easel was a small canvas with an unfinished copy of a large picture. The subject was a boy's head, profile to the right,

flowing hair, and red coat. As far as I can remember the copy was one-fourth the size of the original. Parkman said nothing about the picture, and as I was not attracted by it, I did not ask any questions.

 

When Dix published his 'Life of Chatterton' in 1837 I recognized the engraved portrait as the one I had seen in Parkman's studio. The authenticity of the portrait was ridiculed by all thoughtful persons in Bristol, as the story of the sordid circumstances of Chatterton's family was well authenticated.

 

Shortly after the engraving was published I was accosted by a well-known man named Pope, more commonly called Joe Pope, who was an auctioneer, and kept a small shop as a furniture broker in the vicinity of Castle Green. He told me that many years before he purchased the picture then engraved for 4s. , and had sold it to George Burge for 7s. or 8s. He further informed me that on the back of the picture was inscribed

"F. Morris aged 13," and that it was painted by Morris, the father of the boy represented, and had a trade label of "Bedford, Artists' Colourman," on the strainer. Bedford's shop was at that time a very narrow house between the Council House and the Bush Inn. Bedford, who was an old man, died about 1838.

 

Mr. Deffett Francis has told the story of the presentation of Parkman's copy to Southey.  Mr. Jerdone Braikenridge has confirmed this by quoting a letter of Southey acknowledging the gift; and I have this day, March 19th, 1891, recognized Parkman's copy in the Guelph Exhibition.

 

A word or two on the original picture, said to be a portrait of Chatterton. Life-sized portraits in oil were in the last century luxuries of the rich, and even had the family circumstances enabled his sister to procure such a

memorial, Chatterton was, at the date inscribed on Mr. Braikenridge's picture—March 25th, 1762—a boy in a charity school, with closely cropped hair, whose dress was a blue frieze coat and leather breeches. There was nothing in his life, at that period, that would call for such an extraordinary expenditure.

 

Mr. William George, of Bristol, whose industrious researches into the history of Chatterton are well known, made an exhaustive search without finding the name of Morris, portrait painter, in either directories or poll-books.

 

As regards the small copy of the portrait, no doubt can be thrown on the good faith of all concerned in the controversy. Sir Henry Taylor's memorandum on the back of Parkman's work is a detail of what he learned from others, and believed to be true. Mr. Jerdone Braikenridge has confirmed Mr. Francis's memory respecting the gift of the picture to Southey, and the letters quoted are satisfactory evidence of the fact. 

My recognition of the picture, now in the Guelph Exhibition, cannot be disputed, for I described it to Mr. George Scharf before I visited the New Gallery, where it now hangs.

[signed] HUGH OWEN, F.S.A.

 

P.S.—Since writing the above I have found in Dix's Life of Chatterton,' London, 1837, p. 293, that Barret, the surgeon, described the poet's eyes as grey, and Mr. Stephens, who had been his schoolmate, told Mr. George Cumberland in 1808 that he had " flaxen hair and blue eyes."

In Parkman's copy of the portrait the eyes are dark and the hair a deep umber brown.