was built by the Fitzherberts, upon the same plan, and apparently
by the same architect, as Somersal Hall, Staffordshire. Alleyne
Fitzherbert, who was created Baron St. Helen’s in 1801, was born in
this house, and from it took his title. The ground formerly belonged
to the Abbey of St. Helen, and on the old house being taken down, a
skeleton and numerous bones were found under the foundations, which
lead to the supposition that it was the burial ground of the Abbey; its
site is at the present time occupied by part of St. Helen’s Street, and
Messrs. Hall’s Marble Works. The present St. Helen’s, now the Grammar
School, is on the opposite side of King Street, and was built by----
Gisborne, Esq. The comparatively retired situation of this old house
on the outskirts of the town, suited Wright. It had a large court
before it, and the sitting rooms looked into the gardens, which were
large. Wright always encouraged his children in the enjoyment of active
amusements, as being conducive to health. “The broad gravel walk,
the length of the largest garden,” writes his niece, “was a famous
place for playing at ball, baseball, &c., in which his nieces used to
join with delight, there being no fear of any injury being done. The
old house was well calculated for all sorts of games; from the rooms
opening into each other and into different passages, no place could
be better for hide and seek, and the large hall for blind-man’s-buff,
and games that required space. Swinging was likewise a great pleasure.
There was not any part of the house in which they might not play, and
they could even whip tops in the room where the pictures were arranged
all round, and upon the floor.”
[Illustration: ST. HELEN’S HOUSE IN 1792.]
Wright would allow them to play in his painting-room when he was not
employed, and his niece does not remember him being afraid of anything
being damaged, except when he was painting the portrait of Sir Richard
Arkwright, in which the machine he constructed for spinning cotton was
introduced; then he would not allow anyone to go near the table lest it
should be injured.
The painting-rooms at St. Helen’s House were not so convenient as those
at his brother’s, Dr. Wright’s, in the Iron Gate, where one room opened
into the other, so that by darkening the one room he could introduce
the proper light and subject he intended to paint, and view them to
advantage from the other room. His mechanical genius, however, enabled
him to construct an apparatus for painting candle-light pieces and
effects of fire-light. It consisted of a framework of wood resembling
a large folding screen, which reached to the top of the room, the two
ends being placed against the wall, which formed two sides of the
enclosure. Each fold was divided into compartments, forming a framework
covered with black paper, and opening with hinges, so that when the
object he was painting from was placed within with the proper light,
the artist could view it from various points from without.
In a note to a poem on the Chauntry House, Newark, by the Rev. H. N.
Bousfield, B.A., the following anecdote occurs:--
“The Banqueting, or Dining Room of the Chauntry, contains a strong,
but delicately handled, lengthened portrait of the late Joseph Sikes,
Esq., by the celebrated Mr. Wright, of St. Helen’s, in Derby, the
ancient residence of Mr. Sikes’s family, at an early period of whose
minority that venerable edifice was, to his deep regret, taken down,
and which contained, among other characteristics of “Olden Times,” a
compact Chapel, part of which had a curiously wrought cedar wainscot. A
remarkable proof of the success of the artist in giving to ‘canvas face
and figure,’ was afforded by a favourite little terrier dog of the late
Mr. Sikes’s unconsciously accompanying him into the apartment at St.
Helen’s, upon the _floor_ of which, in a very _unfinished_ state, were
arranged, with many others, this Portrait and that of his first Lady,
the delightful sagacity of that interesting class of animals quickly
displaying itself by an attentive survey of the picture, and by the
most lively emotions of gratification, to the extent even of actually
_licking_ the canvas. The alarm and astonishment, however, so naturally
felt by Mr. Sikes from this honest though uncourteous intruder,
was strongly reproved by Mr. Wright, as the most unprecedented and
unflattering respect he could have received; adding, that if the
_finish_ of the painting was as perfect as the compliment of the dog,
his highest ambition must be exceeded, and if anyone took the trouble
to write his life, that anecdote would necessarily form a prominent
place. It has been aptly observed, that it more than rivals the
celebrated and well-known story of Alexander and Apelles.”
This dog was not singular in paying such an unintentional compliment
to the artist, as the following authenticated anecdote shows:--“In
October, 1782, Mr. Wright was engaged painting the portrait of a young
gentleman named Carleill, and to try the effect in a strong light, the
picture was placed on the floor, with its back resting against the
legs of a chair, when a favourite greyhound, belonging to the family,
coming into the room, bounded up to the picture and began to lick the
face. Hereupon Mrs. Carleill, who was present, apologised to the artist
for the animal’s misbehaviour, but Wright, shaking hands with her,
exclaimed, ‘Oh! Mrs. Carleill, I freely forgive the dog the injury
he has done to the painting for the compliment he has paid me.’” Nor
were human beings exempt from similar deceptions. It is related that
Mrs. Morewood, of Alfreton Hall, went with her friend, Mr. Holland,
of Ford House, to see some paintings at Wright’s rooms; when looking
at the portraits of the three children of Mr. Walter Synnott, grouped
in the act of letting a dove fly from a wickerwork birdcage which was
introduced in the foreground, she desired Mr. Holland would remove the
birdcage, as it obstructed her view of the lower part of the picture;
it is almost needless to add that the cage was painted and not of
wickerwork, and that Wright thanked the lady for the compliment she had
thus unconsciously paid him. At another time, a man who had occasion
to enter the painting-room when the picture of the Old Man and his Ass
(from Sterne) stood upon the floor, tried to kick away the saddle, so
as to obtain a better view of the picture. And on another occasion,
it is said, a gentleman on entering the room, bowed to the full-length
portrait of the late Mr. Charles Hurt, of Wirksworth, which was placed
near the fire to dry, thinking it was Mr. Hurt himself who was in the
room.
With reference to his art-enemies alluded to in the early part of
this chapter, it is a pleasant task to record the following pleasing
anecdote of Wilson, to show that artists may be “great yet amicable
rivals”:--
“Wilson was liberal to his brother artists, and reverenced the
powers of Wright, of Derby, highly, with whom he was intimate. The
latter artist esteemed highly the abilities of Wilson, and when he
was in London, rarely failed to visit his great but amicable rival.
In conversing familiarly one day upon the subject of their art,
Wright proposed to exchange one of his pictures for one of Wilson’s;
the latter assented with the easy consciousness of his particular
excellence, as distinguished from the particular excellence of his
friend: ‘With all my heart, Wright; I’ll give you _air_, and you’ll
give me _fire_.’ It is known that in aerial effect Wilson considered
himself above every rival; and the proposal of Wright may be supposed
to imply, on his part, an ingenuous acknowledgment of Wilson’s
superiority in this particular. I have never heard that Wilson imitated
Wright, but we know that Wright avowedly imitated Wilson, and, in such
instances, reached his glow and aerial effect to admiration.”[26]
Mr. Holland, an intimate friend of Wright, and afterwards one of his
executors, wrote the following intelligible but somewhat incoherent
note on the margin of a catalogue of Wright’s paintings exhibited in
London:--
“Richard Wilson is certainly the first in Landscape (1767). Joseph
Wright should not be called second, because in a procession I would
have them pair, and go hand-in-hand; and were there two right hand
sides, they should both, from their excellence, have them. But this
only in Landscape Procession. Wilson’s forte was only Landscape: look
forward to the variety of the latter, in all of which he excelled;
and in an academy he should have not only one of the foremost, but a
distinguished bench to himself.”
Another brother artist who became a patron of Wright’s was Bacon the
Sculptor, who purchased a small Vesuvius, which was exhibited at the
Great Piazza, London, and afterwards engraved by Byrne.
The following anecdotes and notes, though not relevant to Wright’s
remarkable imitative power, may as well find a place at the end of this
chapter.
The Curator of the Derby Art Gallery tells a good tale of a north
Derbyshire farmer’s visit to the Gallery when the Wright Collection was
being exhibited in 1883. The farmer and his wife were standing before
the picture of a boy blowing a bladder; he was saying to his spouse in
the Derbyshire dialect, “Ah tell yer t’blither iz put behind t’picter,
that’ns a raal blither.” The wife replied that it was only a painted
bladder. He then turned round and appealed to the Curator, who had just
entered the gallery, who assured him that the bladder was painted upon
the canvas, whereupon the farmer became most indignant, and replied,
“Doan’t yer think I knows a blither when ah seez un?”
[Illustration: BOY BLOWING A BLADDER.]
On one occasion, Wright was vexed with a sitter so capricious and
unreasonable, that his patience and ingenuity were sorely taxed. She
came to her second sitting in a different dress to that she had worn
at the first, and desired the painter to represent her as she then
appeared. Wright altered the picture to suit her whim. To his surprise
and annoyance, when she next made her appearance, it was in a third
dress. Again the pliant artist obliged her. When, however, she appeared
in a fourth dress, Wright could stand it no longer, and flatly refused
to make any further alteration. The lady replied in a threat to leave
the portrait on his hands. “Madam,” retorted the painter, “I do not
wish you to have the painting, I shall put it into the first auction
sale, and it will fetch more than I was about to charge you.” This had
the desired result; the picture was taken, but the drapery was painted
over by another artist, named Barber, to suit the caprice of the lady.
A lady who was about to sit to Mr. Wright, was told by her friends that
Mr. Wright would arrange her hair, &c. She, to enable him to carry this
into effect, spread out upon the table a large assortment of brushes,
combs, pomades, bandoline, &c., much to the astonishment and amusement
of the artist.
A sitter, a lady, who, though possessed of a fine figure, and good
arms and ankles, had but an indifferent face, puzzled Mr. Wright as
to the position in which he should place her. After some thought he
chose to paint her extending her beautiful bare arm towards a branch
of a hawthorn tree. Showing only sufficient of the lady’s face to be
recognisable, he brought the full contour of her handsome figure into
view, with one pretty foot and ankle peeping out from under her dress,
and thus produced what was at once a good portrait and pleasing picture.
From the foregoing description, it is most probable that the following
advertisement which appeared in the “Times” newspaper of July 25th,
1871, refers to the same picture, and that Mrs. Woodville was the
sitter.
TO PICTURE DEALERS & OTHERS.
FIFTY POUNDS REWARD.
The above reward will be paid for the Portrait in Oil of the
late Mrs. Woodville, by Wright, of Derby. The size is about
7 feet 6 inches by 4 feet 6 inches. She is attired in white,
and represented as climbing up a bank to gather hawthorne. Her
feet and ankles are displayed, and her shoes ornamented with
garnet buckles. The picture is believed never to have been
framed, and from being constantly rolled up to be considerably
cracked.
--Apply to Messrs. SIMPSON & NORTH,
Solicitors, 1, Rumford Street,
Liverpool.
Upon further enquiry I find that Major Orred, of Tranmere and Weston,
Cheshire, caused the reward to be offered, and succeeded in finding
the portrait at a Chemist’s, in Liverpool, but it was unfortunately
mutilated by being cut down from whole length to “Kit-cat.”
In “Mozley’s Reminiscences,” p. 65, the following allusion is made to
Wright:--
“There are men who are interesting from their associations, but whom
no associations can redeem. Such was Joseph Pickford. I first became
acquainted with his figure and circumstances at Derby, in 1815. His
father had been an architect and builder, and the intimate friend of
Wright the painter, remarkable for his illustrations of the varieties
of light and their effects; and also of Whitehurst, a mechanician and
author of a ‘Theory of the Earth.’ It was a coterie contemporaneous and
on friendly terms with the Philosophical Society, founded by Erasmus
Darwin, but with a different caste, for philosophers are, socially,
as exclusive as other people. The father had built in the Friar Gate
a house of some architectural pretensions, his _chef-d’œuvre_, people
said. The sons had divided it. He occupied the smaller portion, entered
by a side door, much as it had come from the builder’s hands. The only
pretty thing in his sitting room was a charming picture by Wright, of
Pickford and his brother playing with a spaniel, of the date 1775, I
should think, and in the gay costume of that period. It passed into the
hands of a branch of the Curzon family. When I called on Pickford it
was a caution to see what a beautiful child might come to.”
Woodward (G. W.), the Caricaturist (himself a Derbyshire man), says in
his “Eccentric Excursions,” “It would be unpardonable to leave Derby
without noticing the celebrated artist, Mr. Wright, who has resided
several years in a house[27] facing the New Inn, overgrown with ivy,
which, together with its high walls, proclaims an habitation sacred
to study and retirement. The result of his labours are always open to
the inspection of the stranger, an indulgence characteristic of this
gentleman’s well-known affability; and those who depart unpleased
after viewing his Moon and Candle-light pieces, and other inimitable
specimens of his pencil, must indeed be void of taste and judgment in
the imitative arts.”
In Wright’s account-book is the following entry:--“An account of the
Trees in Windmill pit close in the year 1783, when eight trees on
Shaw’s side, six on the Normanton lane, and ten on the road side, in
all 24 trees.” From this entry we learn that the historical “Windmill
Pit”[28] close (where Joan Waste[29] was burnt at the stake in 1556)
at that time belonged to Wright, and that he planted the trees which
adorned that once pretty spot, but which have had to fall before the
march of the mason and bricklayer. The annual rent of the close at that
date was £20.
[Illustration: JOSEPH AND HARRIET, TWO OF WRIGHT’S CHILDREN.
_Original picture in the possession of Miss Cade._]
CHAPTER VI.
WRIGHT’S SECESSION FROM THE ROYAL ACADEMY.--J. L.
PHILIPS.--THE MESSRS. REDGRAVE’S CRITICISMS ON THE
SECESSION AND UPON WRIGHT’S WORKS.--HAYLEY’S POEM.--ANTHONY
PASQUIN.--LETTERS FROM WRIGHT TO J. L. PHILIPS.--THE “AIR
PUMP” PICTURE.
I now propose to deal with the uncommon instance of an artist who,
after having accepted the Associateship, refused the full honours
of the Royal Academy. In November of 1781, Wright was elected an
Associate, and in February, 1784, a full member of the Academy, but for
some reason or other he declined to become an Academician. Much has
been written upon this subject, and very different conclusions have
been arrived at.
One of his most intimate friends, J. Leigh Philips, who possessed
considerable artistic judgment, wrote in 1797--the year after Wright’s
death--the following account of Wright’s treatment by the Royal
Academy, and there is no doubt but that he was well acquainted with all
the circumstances of the case:--
“His portraits are mostly confined to the immediate neighbourhood
of Derby; this remark may likewise in a great degree extend to the
generality of his works, as but few of his late pictures have been
publicly exhibited, owing to their being frequently disposed of even
before finished, and to a repugnance which he felt at sending his works
to an exhibition where he had too much cause to complain of their
being improperly placed, and sometimes even upon the ground, that, if
possible, they might escape the public eye. As a proof of the truth
of this remark, the last pictures he exhibited were _placed upon the
ground_. In consequence of which they were so much injured by the feet
of the company, as to render it necessary to have the frames repaired
and re-gilded. This narrow jealousy, added to the circumstance of his
being rejected as an R.A. at the time Mr. Garvey was a successful
candidate, did not tend to increase his opinion of the liberality of
his brethren in the profession. The Academy, however, being afterwards
made aware of the impropriety of thus insulting a man of his abilities,
deputed their Secretary, Newton, to Derby, to solicit his acceptance
of a diploma, which he indignantly rejected, knowing how little the
institution could serve him, and feeling perhaps a satisfaction that
his friend Mortimer and himself were both deemed equally unqualified to
enjoy the honours attached to that Royal establishment.”
The Messrs. Redgrave, in their “Century of Painters,” “take exception
to this account of the treatment of Wright by the Academy,” and say,
“We are inclined to discount the whole of the tale” upon the grounds
that “we have searched the records of the Academy to learn the facts
connected with Wright’s retirement.” It was a safe place to search for
what was sure not to be found, if Mr. Philips’ account were true.
Against the authors of the “Century of Painters” are arrayed
the writers and poets of the day, who took up the case when the
circumstances were well known. If Wright felt aggrieved, he had a
perfect right to decline the honour; and it appears to me that the
story as told by Mr. Philips has more claim to credence than the
opinions of writers a century later, founded upon such purely negative
evidence.
The Messrs. Redgrave also state that “he then (when offered the full
diploma) refused to comply with the law of the Academy, which requires
a member to present one of his works to the Academy before receiving
his diploma, and required his name to be removed from the list of
Associates.” As Wright declined the proffered honour, it was not
necessary for him to “comply with the law of the Academy, and present
one of his works.” The refusal was consequent upon his retirement, but
there is nothing to show that it caused it.
Again, Mr. S. Redgrave, in his “Dictionary of Artists,” states--“On
the foundation of the Academy he had entered as a student, and in 1781
he was elected an Associate; his election as a full member followed
in 1784. But we are told that, annoyed by another having been elected
before him, he retired altogether from the Academy. The facts, however,
do not bear out this statement, and it appears more probable that the
nervous, irritable, ailing painter, settled quietly so far from the
Metropolis, was afraid of the duties and responsibilities which his
membership would entail.” It will be seen that Mr. S. Redgrave omits to
state the “facts” to which he refers.
The retirement of Wright from the Academy induced Hayley, the Poet,
to write the following Ode, with a view to “Guard him from meek
depression’s chill controul”:--
ODE TO JOSEPH WRIGHT, ESQ., OF DERBY.[30]
“Away! ye sweet, but trivial forms,
That from the placid pencil rise,
When playful Art the Landscape warms
With Italy’s unclouded skies!
Stay, vanity! nor yet demand
Thy portrait from the painter’s hand!
Nor ask thou, Indolence, to aid thy dream,
The soft illusion of the mimic stream,
That twinkles to thy sight with Cynthia’s[31] trembling beam!
Be thine, my Friend, a nobler task!
Beside thy vacant Easel see
Guests, who, with claims superior, ask
New miracles of art from thee:
Valour, who mocks unequal strife,
And Clemency, whose smile is life!
‘_Wright!_ let thy skill (this radiant pair exclaim)
Give to our view our favourite scene of Fame,
Where Britain’s genius blazed in glory’s brightest Flame.’
Cœlestial ministers! ye speak
To no dull agent sloth opprest;
Who coldly hears, in spirit weak,
Heroic Virtue’s high behest:
Behold, tho’ envy strives to foil
The Artist bent on public toil,
Behold! his Flames terrific lustre shed;
His naval Blaze mounts from his billowy bed;
And Calpe[32] proudly rears his war illumined head.
In gorgeous Pomp for ever shine
Bright monument of Britain’s force!
Though doomed to feel her fame decline
In ill-starr’d war’s o’erwhelming course;
Though Europe’s envious realms unite
To crush her in unequal Fight,
Her Genius, deeply stung with generous shame,
On this exalting Rock arrayed in flame,
Equals her ancient feats, and vindicates her name.
How fiercely British valour pours
The deluge of destructive Fire,
Which o’er that watery Babel roars,
Bidding the baffled Host retire,
And leave their fallen, to yield their breath
In different pangs of double death!
Ye shall not perish: No! ye hapless brave,
Reckless of peril thro’ the fiery wave.
See! British Mercy steers, each prostrate foe to save.
Ye gallant chiefs whose deeds proclaim
The genuine Hero’s feeling soul,
Elliott[33] and Curtis,[34] with whose name
Honour enriched his radiant roll:
Blest is your fate! nor blest alone,
That rescued Foes your virtues own,
That Britain triumphs in your filial worth;
Blest in the period of your glory’s birth,
When Art can bid it live to decorate the Earth!
Alas! what deeds, where virtue reign’d,
Have in oblivion’s darkness died,
When Painting, by the Goths enchain’d,
No life-securing tints supplied!
Of all thy powers, enchanting Art,
Thou deemest this the dearest part,
To guard the rights of valour, and afford
Surviving lustre to the Hero’s sword:
For this, heroic Greece thy martial charms adored.
Rival of Greece, in arms, in arts,
Tho’ deemed in her declining days,
Britain yet boasts unnumbered Hearts,
Who keenly pant for public praise:
Her Battles yet are firmly fought
By Chiefs with Spartan courage fraught:
Her Artists, with Athenian zeal, unite
To trace the glories of the prosp’rous fight,
And gild th’ embattl’d scene with Art’s immortal light.
Tho’ many a hand may well portray,
The rushing War’s infuriate shock,
Proud Calpe bids thee, WRIGHT, display
The Terrors of her blazing Rock;
The burning hulks of baffled Spain,
From thee she claims, nor claims in vain,
Thou mighty master of the mimic Flame,
Whose Peerless Pencil, with peculiar aim,
Has formed of lasting Fire the basis of thy Fame.
Just is thy praise, thy Country’s voice
Loudly asserts thy signal power;
In this reward may’st thou rejoice,
In modest Labour’s silent hour,
Far from those seats, where envious leagues,
And dark cabals, and base intrigues
Exclude meek merit from its proper Home;
Where Art, whom _Royalty_ forbade to roam,
Against thy Talents closed her self-dishonour’d Dome.
When partial pride, or mean neglect,
The nerves of injur’d Genius gall,
What kindly spells of keen effect
His energy of Heart recall?
Perchance there is no spell so strong
As friendship’s sympathetic song:
By fancy link’d in a fraternal band,
Artist and Bard in sweet alliance stand;
They suffer equal wounds, and mutual aid demand.
Go then, to slighted worth devote
Thy willing verse, my fearless Muse;
Haply thy free and friendly note
Some joyous ardour may infuse
In fibres, that severely smart,
From potent envy’s poison’d dart;
Thro’ WRIGHT’S warm breast bid tides of vigour roll,
Guard him from meek depression’s chill controul,
And rouse him to exert each sinew of his Soul.”
The first nine verses allude to Wright’s picture of the Siege of
Gibraltar.
The last three refer to his having been rejected as an R.A.
This “Ode” is referred to by Wright in the following interesting letter
to his friend Hayley; and from what we learn of Wright’s character from
those who knew him, it is very certain that he would not have accepted
as a “very ingenious and very friendly ode” a poem which contained such
severe animadversions upon the treatment he had been subjected to by
the Royal Academy, unless he had thought them justified by the facts:--
“Derby, Aug. 31st, 1783.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“It is recommended to the painters who wish to become eminent,
to let no day pass without a line. How contrary, alas! has
been my practice; a series of ill-health for these sixteen
years past (the core of my life) has subjected me to many idle
days, and bowed down my attempts towards fame and fortune.
I have laboured under an annual malady some years, four and
five months at a time; under the influence of which I have
now dragged over four months, without feeling a wish to take
up my pencil, till roused by your very ingenious and very
friendly Ode, in which are many beautiful parts, and some
sublime. Perhaps, had I then been furnished with proper
materials for the action off Gibraltar, I should have begun my
fire; but for want of such instructions, I soon sunk into my
wonted torpor again, from which, as the weather grows cooler,
I hope to awaken. Mr. Wedgwood approves of your subject of
Penelope, as a companion to the Maid of Corinth. You mention
the boy Telemachus being pale and feverish; pray, is there any
authority in history for it? or have you mentioned it to give
more character and expression to his mother? When I know this
I shall make a sketch of it, and consult you further about it.
Some little time ago, I received one hundred copies of your
charming Ode (would I deserved what your warm friendship has
lavished on me), some of which I distributed among my friends;
but would it not be more advantageous to me to spread abroad
the rest when my picture is finished--especially if I make an
exhibition of it with some others?
“I am, dear Sir, with the greatest esteem,
“Your much obliged Friend,
“J. WRIGHT.”
Another writer, Anthony Pasquin,[35] in his “The Royal Academicians:
A Farce, 1786,” gives this account of Wright’s secession from the
Academy, which he puts into the mouth of Truth:--
“The inimitable Wright, of Derby, once expressed an ardent desire
to be admitted a member of the Academy, but from what unaccountable
reason his wishes were frustrated remains as yet a secret to the
world; but the sagacious, or, rather, the envious brethren of the
brush thought proper to thrust so eminent an artist on one side to
make way for so contemptible an animal as Edmund Garbage (Garvey).
They had scarcely invested this insignificant mushroom with diplomatic
honours before they discovered that they had been committing a most
atrocious, diabolical, and bloody murder upon two gentlemen of great
respectability and character, ycleped Genius and Justice; and the
pangs of their wounded consciences became so very troublesome, that
it was resolved, in a full divan, instantly to despatch Secretary
Prig to Derby with the diploma, and force these august privileges
and distinctions upon the disappointed painter, that he had before
solicited in vain. But, alas! the expedition was inauspicious and
unfortunate; the diploma was rejected with the most evident marks of
contempt, and the Secretary kicked as a recompense for his presumption.”
This account is, no doubt, a caricature of what actually took place,
but it to a certain extent corroborates both Mr. Philips’ statement and
the Poet Hayley’s allusions to the same event in his ode; and we must
remember that the poet was also one of Wright’s intimate friends.
Mr. F. G. Stephens has kindly called my attention to the following
extract from “Number 1: A Liberal Critique on the Exhibition for 1794,”
by “Anthony Pasquin” (Williams), p. 15:--
J. WRIGHT, DERBY.
No. 107, “_An Eruption of Vesuvius_.”
No. 232, “_A Lake at Dunkeld, in Scotland, Evening_,” _by the
same Author_.
No. 233, “_A Village on Fire_,” _by ditto_.
“This truly celebrated Artist has honoured the Institution
by condescending to mingle his choice labours with the _Harp
Alley_[36] excellence of a majority of the Royal Academicians.
Feeling their importance so inordinately, it moves my wonder
that these uplifted gentlemen do not eagerly contribute,
by their own efforts, to the support of that order from
whence they derive such prodigious importance, and not give
the cavilling world occasion to remark that they have been
honoured without desert, and retain the mummeries of the
institution without gratitude. When I was in Paris, in 1787,
they managed those affairs much better; the Royal Academy of
Polite Arts there was conducted more nobly: every person was
admitted to view _gratis_, what was meant as a free display
of national genius, for national admiration. With us the
motive seems cupidity, and the end deception. With the richest
Monarch in Europe for their patron, the arts of England are
literally kept from destruction by the votive shillings of
a motley public, who pay the salaries of the professors,
and find _oil_ for the lamps in the _plaister_ and _living_
schools, though the King arrogates the character of being the
high supporter of the system. But it is a provident assumption
of dignity, unaccompanied with either risk, anxiety, or
expense! He seems to possess the _furor_ of patronage as
highly as the tenth Leo, but I have as yet to learn that he is
equally munificent.”
My own opinion is, that the facts as recorded by these writers were
in the main correct. There seems no reason to doubt that Wright’s
contributions to the annual Exhibitions at the Academy had been
systematically placed in bad positions, and that he felt his abilities
deserved recognition before those of Mr. E. Garvey, his competitor
at the time, whose works consisted principally of small pictures of
gentlemen’s seats. At this period, the Elections at the Royal Academy
were contested, and interest was all-powerful; and nothing would have
been more repugnant to the sensitive and honourable nature of Wright,
than having to pass through the ordeal of canvassing for an election,
where merit alone should have been the test.
It is to be regretted that no letters or other memoranda are to be
found amongst Wright’s papers which throw any light upon his refusal of
the diploma in 1784.
I am, however, able to give, in Wright’s own words, his version of his
treatment by the Royal Academy during the years 1790, 1791, and 1794.
From these letters we learn that Wright had again become an exhibitor
in the Academy, but that his pictures were badly hung. This treatment
calls forth these words from him:--“’Tis not the first instance of
their base conduct. I have been driven from their Exhibition before,
and must again withdraw myself, unless I could brook such abuse.”
Again, in writing to Mr. Philips, in 1794, he says:--“Your picture
of Vesuvius and one at Dunkeld which would have been at Manchester
before now, had not the frames of the pictures which I exhibited been
materially damaged at the Academy. Mr. Milbourne has orders to put them
into good condition and send them to you when done.”
This is alone sufficient to prove his retirement had some deeper ground
than a disinclination to present a diploma picture.
“Derby, 11th June, 1790.
“TO JOHN LEIGH PHILIPS,
“My good friend, for so I have reason to call you, is ever
prompt and eager to redress as much as may be my wrongs. I
have lately sustained a real injury from the _most illiberal_
behaviour of the Royal Academicians, with which my dear friend
Tate has made you acquainted. ’Tis not the first instance of
their base conduct. I have been driven from their Exhibition
before, and must again withdraw myself--unless I could brook
such abuse--for it is better not to exhibit at all than under
such disadvantageous circumstances. To put my pictures in
places they could not be seen, and then to decry them is rank
villany, and what an artist should sink under the reflection
of. I wish the Town had held together longer; I should have
been very glad to have their behaviour publickly known, while
it is recent, that if I should exhibit no more with them, the
true reason may be known. I was prophet enough to foretell
what would happen to me. I think I communicated it to Tate,
indeed it required no divination, to know the miscreants and
their dependency on the Alderman,[37] was to know the result
of all. I am sorry the business is protracted from time to
time. The Editors stand much in awe of this great man. I heard
the other day from a Relation of the Alderman’s, that the
editor of the Morning Herald had a violent quarrel with him
for rejecting the performance of a relation of his as unworthy
of his gallery. There is an odd paragraph in the Leicester
papers. ‘The _Prince_ of pick-pockets has given instruction
to his attorney to prosecute a printer for a libel on his
_character_.’ Can you guess who it is? I wonder Vasari has
not yet come out with his statement of facts, sure he has not
plugged with gold the touch hole of his great guns. At present
I can but thank you for your very friendly services to me; I
feel the weight of such _solid obligations_.
“My best remembrances to Mrs. Philips, my Friend Tate, Mrs.
Hardman, &c., &c., and believe me very sincerely and with much
esteem your Friend,
“JO^{SH} WRIGHT.
“P.S.--Tate says you have so high an opinion of my two
pictures that if I will join you, Heath shall be applied
to, to engrave them. I hardly know how to reply, unless I
knew something of the expense, and the likelihood of saving
ourselves in such an engagement. Independent of these
considerations I should like it of all things, as it would be
pushing the matter with the Alderman still further. Perhaps
you will indulge me with a line soon.”
“15th April, 1791.
“TO JOHN LEIGH PHILIPS,
“MY DEAR SIR,
“I have just received a letter from the Sect^y of the
incorporated Society of Artists, assuring me they will be
happy to receive any pictures from me, but they wish to
avoid inserting anything in the catalogue, that may appear
like altercation with the R Academy, and they conceive it
sufficient to mention in the catalogue, that the two pictures
from Shakespeare were exhibited last year at Somerset house,
timely notice not having been sent of the Exhibition of this
Society, but the subjects having received alterations, Mr.
Wright wishes them to be exhibited here. However in this
respect the Committee will be wholly guided by me. I think
nothing had better be said than the above. My wish was to have
had something mentioned in the catalogue expressive of the
slight & injustice shewn to my pictures last year by the R
Academy, by the obscure places they put them in, which I hope
will be an apology to the publick for their 2^{nd} appearance.
Pray suggest something proper if you and my friend Tate think
some observation of the kind should be made.
“Heath & Martin will have an opportunity of seeing these
pictures; whether they will approve of them is uncertain, nor
do I know whether the two pictures of Romeo & Juliet and the
Storm are to be marked in the Catalogue to be sold. It would
gratify my pride and resentment to the Alderman to have ’em
engraved by Heath--as the Companion of the Storm would become
more universal. The Society wish to have any single picture
besides the two from Shakespeare, which would preclude any
unpleasant suggestions that might be started to the prejudice
of the Society. Pray give me your thoughts by return of post,
as I must write as soon as possible.
“I am still unwell--no work going on. Adieu my good friend,
and believe me yours very sincerely,
“JOS^H WRIGHT.
“St Ellens,
“15 Apl, 1791.”
The note in the catalogue of 1791, the last exhibition of the Society,
thus reads:--“N.B.--The above pictures were exhibited last year in the
Royal Academy; but having been placed in an unfortunate situation,
owing (as Mr. Wright supposes) to their having arrived too late in
London, and having since received alterations, he is desirous they
should again meet the public eye.”
“St Ellens, Apl 23^{rd} 1791.
“TO JOHN LEIGH PHILIPS,
“MY DEAR SIR,
“As I have a very high opinion of your judgment, integrity,
and friendship for me, I have the greatest satisfaction
in asking your advice & regulating my conduct by it. I
have implicitly followed your instructions relative to the
Incorporated Society, who I believe would do anything in
reason to accommodate me. They approve of the N.B., as it now
stands, it entirely removes every ground of cavil between them
and the R.A., yet for my own sake, they wish me to reconsider
it, as in their opinion it sets me in perhaps too pointed a
view of opposition to the R.A., but I don’t see that. They
have repeatedly used me ill, and the public ought to know
it, or my changing the place of exhibition might be deemed
whimsicalness. The terms it is couched in are delicate, and
the supposition of delay, being ye cause of the pictures being
disadvantageously placed, is a very sufficient apology for the
Academy, better indeed than my heart is inclined to make them.
“I consider the Exhibition as my mart, and I have sent three
small pictures. I wish they may make good head against the
Royalists this year, against another I hope to be better
prepared. I like the Spring Gardens Room very much. I am glad
you like the addition to your Grotto, in my opinion ’tis much
improved by it; there is a better balance of light and shadow.
I would advise you to get it painted on the backside with a
greyish colour which will preserve it much. I mention grey
because the paint works thro’ like pin heads in any of the
porus parts. That tint will be the least seen and where they
are seen, our dear friend Tate will touch ’em with the point
of a pencil. The Moonlight is 30^{gs.}
“I thank you very kindly for a quantity of most excellent
rags, you were resolved I should never want again. I do not
understand when you say, “if we can see ye 2^d No. of Boydell
we shall all be satisfied.” Pray is the 1^{st} out. I am glad
you are recovered.
“JO^S WRIGHT.”
“20th May, 1791.
“TO JOHN LEIGH PHILIPS,
“MY DEAR SIR,
“Your Account of the base situation of my friend Tate’s
pictures in the R.A. hurts me much, tho’ from repeated
instances of this sort of behaviour both to myself and Pupil
I am not much surprised. ’Tis their duty to form the best
exhibition in their power, by giving every picture the
place its merit claims, but partiality pervades the whole,
and I have frequently seen pictures unworthy of public
exhibition possessing the most advantageous places. Who it is
that misconducts this matter, I know not, but I have heard
Farrington has much sway in the Academy.
“As you have given up the concern which Tate mentioned to me
sometime ago, I must also give up the flattering idea which I
had entertained of having my picture engraved by Heath. Martin
& he wished again to see them. Have you heard anything from
Heath about them, because the time of closing will be drawing
nigh and I must determine what to do with ’em. I think they
will be the last pictures I shall exhibit.
“I am happy you like your pictures, and am obliged to you for
the remittance of £31. 10. 0. I could have wished for the ease
of my own feelings to have excused the payment (for I stand
much indebted to you) but I durst not offer it you, for fear
of wounding yours at this time. However, anon, I will place a
center picture between the two, to show how sincerely I think
myself,
“Dr Sir, your obliged Friend,
“JO^{SH} WRIGHT.
“St Ellens,
“May 20, 1791.”
In a biography of Wright, I am compelled to notice the unwarrantable
attack made by the Messrs. Redgrave, in their “Century of Painters,”
upon the reputation of Wright as a painter. Whether this arose from
Wright’s seceding from the Academy, and so committing an unpardonable
offence in the eyes of the Messrs. Redgrave, or from the fact that they
judged Wright by unimportant works, as I shall presently show, or from
both combined, I must leave the reader to decide.
Messrs. Redgrave state:--“Having made a journey into the County
especially to see some of the works of this Derbyshire artist, we were
shown many, both portraits, landscapes, and figure subjects, reported
to be amongst his best, but always disappointing to our expectations.”
Soon after the publication of the “Century of Painters,” I was at the
trouble to make enquiries as to what pictures had been seen by the
Messrs. Redgrave on the occasion of this visit, and found that they had
not seen his best pictures at all, but only a few which were either
left unfinished at his death or had been tampered with by others,
together with some unimportant works. They did not see “The Orrery,”
“The Gladiator,” “The Alchymist,” nor any of his important portraits
or “conversation” pictures. The “Air Pump” picture was apparently not
seen by them until later, when a portion of their criticisms had been
written, and it then received encomium from them, which I now place
in juxtaposition with what they had written a few pages before. The
italics are mine.
MESSRS. REDGRAVE _v._ MESSRS. REDGRAVE.
JOS. WRIGHT, OF DERBY.
“As a portrait painter, judged by his best works, he was
merely respectable. There is a painful solidity of execution,
_a want of quality and texture both in the flesh and
draperies_, so that when placed beside the works of Reynolds
or Gainsboro’ his portraits remind us of the labours of the
_house painter_; they show little variety of handling; _flesh,
drapery, sky, trees, all being executed in the same painty
manner_.”--“Century of Painters,” vol. 1, p. 258.
CRITICISMS ON THE PICTURE CALLED “AN EXPERIMENT WITH AN AIR PUMP.”
“We certainly should have placed Wright of Derby _much lower
as an artist_ had we not seen this _very clever work_.... The
drawing and composition is satisfactory, and there is a great
contrast in the expression and the varied attitudes of the
several heads. _The flesh of the faces is good in colour, and
most carefully modelled_; indeed the young woman on the right,
in blue, and the lad drawing down a curtain to shut out the
moonlight on the left, are worth special observation for this
quality. _The draperies are all carefully painted from nature
(a merit apparent also in most of Wright’s portraits)_, and
are in this respect very different from the sloppy negligence
of some of the followers of Reynolds. There is a pretty
little incident rendered with feeling and true expression,
in the group of two young girls touched with childish sorrow
and dread of what they are told is to be the result of ‘the
experiment’--the death of the bird confined in the glass
receiver of the machine.
“The colour of the whole is pleasant, the execution firm
and _solid_, and the brown shadows, although dark, are
sufficiently rich and luminous, the picture very agreeable in
general tone.”--“Century of Painters,” vol. 1, p. 264.
Mr. R. Redgrave, R.A., in a letter to the writer, dated Nov. 30, 1861,
wrote:--“I have seen on my journey and since, _very many fine Wrights_,
and have reported to the Commissioners (International Exhibition) on
six or eight, which they intend to ask or have asked for.” It is a
difficult task to reconcile this statement with the “house painter”
theory. Yet the “Century of Painters” was not published until 1866.
Of the picture of “An Experiment with an Air Pump,” which called
forth such praise from the Messrs. Redgrave, I am enabled, through
the courtesy of the Proprietors of the “Art Journal,” to give an
illustration. It was presented to the National Gallery, a few years
ago, by Mr. Walter Tyrrell.
[Illustration: “AN EXPERIMENT WITH AN AIR PUMP.”]
[Illustration: “EDWIN.”
FROM DR. BEATTIE’S “MINSTREL.” ETCHED BY MR. F. SEYMOUR HADEN.
MR. THOMAS HADEN, OF DERBY, SAT FOR THIS PICTURE.
_Original picture in the possession of the Right Honourable Lord
Houghton._]
CHAPTER VII
MENTION OF SOME IMPORTANT PICTURES.--THE CUSTOM HOUSE
AUTHORITIES AND “THE CAPTIVE” PICTURE.--THE “DEAD SOLDIER”
AND HEATH THE ENGRAVER.--“DESTRUCTION OF THE FLOATING
BATTERIES OFF GIBRALTAR.”--“THE ORRERY.”--EARL FERRERS AS
A PATRON.--MORTIMER.--PETER PINDAR.--DR. DARWIN.--ANNA
SEWARD.--WEDGWOOD.--BENTLEY.--“THE ALCHYMIST” PICTURE.--HAYLEY
THE POET.--THOS. A. HAYLEY THE SCULPTOR.
We have seen that Wright’s visit to Italy caused him to turn his
attention to landscape, and it is after his return from thence that we
find him entering upon the treatment of poetical subjects. “Edwin,”
from Beattie’s “Minstrel,” and “Maria,” from Sterne’s sentimental
journey, were exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1778 and 1781, and were
portraits of living persons, who were eminently fitted to represent
the ideal of the authors. Before Wright commenced to paint “Edwin
the Minstrel,” he wrote to Dr. Beattie to ask his opinion upon the
treatment of the subject. The Doctor wrote a very excellent letter in
reply, and concluded by saying, “Edwin from your pencil will be all my
pen vainly endeavoured to make him.” A Derby gentleman, Thos. Haden,
surgeon, who was considered to be one of the handsomest men in the town
at that date, sat for this picture. The lady who sat for “Maria” was a
Mrs. Bassano, of Derby.
I am indebted to Mr. F. Seymour Haden for kindly allowing me to
embellish this volume with his admirable etching of “Edwin the
Minstrel.”
We may well attribute these and some other pictures of a sentimental
character to the influence of Wright’s visit to Italy. Wright was
evidently indebted for the attitude of the figure in the picture of
“The Captive” to Michael Angelo’s “Adam” in the Capella Sistina. This
picture was painted in Rome, and sent to England. A very good tale is
told about it, which is here inserted from “The Universal Magazine” of
June, 1795:--
“When this celebrated painter (Wright, of Derby) was at Rome, he
painted that very fine figure, “The Captive,” from Sterne, and
consigned the picture to a friend in London, who having advice of its
being landed, and deposited in the Custom House, presented a petition
to the Board, stating that it was a portrait painted by an English
artist, and praying it might be delivered duty free. In answer to this
he received an order to attend on a given day, and was brought before
their honours. The picture was produced, and the first question asked
was, “Of whom is it the portrait?” The gentleman replied with truth, it
was the portrait of a Roman (for it was copied from a Roman beggar),
and the Board seemed inclined to let it pass; but an old gentleman, who
had long been a Commissioner, made a shrewd objection, and remarked
that this was such a portrait as he had never before seen in his life,
and taken in a manner that he did not believe either Roman, Greek,
Turk, Jew, or Infidel, would ever consent to ‘sit.’ ‘If,’ he added,
‘any gentleman at this Honourable Board chose to have his picture
drawn, would not he put on a clean shirt, and have his wig fresh
powdered, and be clean shaved; answer me that? To be sure he would.
Now, it is here pretended, that this fellow sat for his portrait, who
had hardly a rag to cover his nakedness; gentlemen, if he could have
afforded to have paid for painting his picture, he could have afforded
to buy himself a pair of breeches!’ He added by moving that the duty
might be paid; and the duty was paid accordingly.”
Wright was more fortunate when he returned from Italy, as to payment of
Custom House duties, as the following extract from a letter from Bath,
dated 4th Dec., 1775, shows:--“Through the interest & application of my
friend Mr. Baxter, I have got my pictures, &c., duty free, a thing so
unusual the clerks cou’d scarce credit it. I believe it an indulgence
none have experienced but myself. Had I been charged with ye common
duty, I should have had near £30 to pay, an object this at any time, at
the present a very material one.”
From the pictures of this character, we must not omit to mention that
of the “Dead Soldier,” from Langhorne’s poems, which has become so
familiar through the excellent line engraving by Heath.
It is related that Wright said before he painted the “Dead Soldier,”
that he would depict the greatest possible sorrow, yet there should be
a smiling face in the picture. The following lines by William Sotheby,
F.R.S., bear testimony to the realisation of his intention:--
“I, to yon lonely tent by pity led,
View where the widow mourns her soldier, dead;
Turns from her babe, whose careless smiles impart
Strange woe, that harrows up the mother’s heart,
Hangs o’er the body, bleeding on the ground,
Clasps his cold hand, and faints upon the wound.”
The picture of the “Dead Soldier” was bought from the easel by Heath
for £105, who afterwards sold it to J. L. Philips. It was sold in
Manchester, when the effects of that Patron of the Fine Arts came
to the hammer, by Winstanley and Taylor, in October, 1814, and then
realized £315. It is thus described in the Catalogue:--“Lot 33, Wright,
of Derby,--‘The Dead Soldier.’ This acknowledged _chef-d’œuvre_ of this
admired master, uniting great knowledge of grouping, excellent drawing,
& correct colouring, with a fine feeling of sentiment, decidedly
proves the assertion of Mr. Fuzeli, in his ‘Biographical Notice of Mr.
Wright,’ that ‘he once eminently succeeded in the pathetic.’”
The line engraving by Heath appears, from the following correspondence,
to have been a great success.
The following is a copy of the original circular issued by the
Engraver:--
London, July 25th, 1795.
PROPOSALS
For Publishing by Subscription
A PRINT,
To be Engraved by
_JAMES HEATH_,
Historical engraver to his Majesty, &c.,
from
The celebrated picture
of
THE DEAD SOLDIER,
Painted by
WRIGHT, OF DERBY.
CONDITIONS:
That the plate shall be the Size of the Plate of the DEATH
OF GENERAL WOLFE. The price of each print will be One
Guinea; Proofs, Two Guineas; Half to be paid at the time of
subscribing, and the remainder on the delivery of the Print.
Subscriptions are received by the Proprietor, _James Heath_,
at 42 Newman Street, where a proof of the plate may be seen.
_Received __________________ 179 of
the sum of ______________ being Half of the Subscription
for ______________ impression of the above-mentioned print,
which I promise to deliver according to the proposals._
The following correspondence relating to the print is also of some
interest:--
“Oct. 17th, 1796.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS.
“I have sent a proof of the ‘Dead Soldier’ very near finished.
Pray let me have your opinion and remarks upon it as soon
as possible. I have sent one to Wright, and have asked him
to paint a companion to it; if he will not, who would you
recommend for that purpose?
“I have hopes of a great sale from the number of subscribers I
already have, and the approbation the print has met with from
every one who has seen it.
“J. HEATH.”
“1796.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS.
“The prints you mention from Wright’s I dare say I shall be
able to pick up at the sales this winter. I have heard from
Mr. Wright, in which he says: ‘The effect of the picture is so
well preserved, and the parts which compose it so true, that
I have nothing to say but that I am well pleased with it.’ He
says that he began to paint again about a week ago, and that
he will (if his health returns) talk to me about a companion
picture.
“J. HEATH.”
“Feby., 1797.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS.
“I shewed him (Lord Lansdowne) a proof of the ‘Dead Soldier,’
which he liked exceedingly, and subscribed for a couple. I
asked his permission to dedicate it to him, which seemed to
give him great pleasure. I expect him to call to see the
picture, and when he has seen it, I will immediately send it
on to you.
“J. HEATH.”
“TO JOSEPH WRIGHT.
“SIR,
“As I am going to publish the ‘Dead Soldier,’ I wish to
announce the ‘Shipwrecked Sailor’ as a companion. I should
therefore be much obliged to you to inform me whether your
health will permit your painting it. An answer will much
oblige.
“Your most obedt. Servt.,
“JAS. HEATH.
“Mch. 14th, 1797.
“Newman St., London.”
“April, 1797.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS.
“I have sent in a large tin case by to-night’s conveyance,
four Dozen of the very first impressions of the ‘Dead
Soldier,’ and one Dozen proofs. This number is more than you
have at different times ordered for yourself and friends, but
as I have raised the price to
2. 2. 0.
1. 6. 0.
and as they are choice impressions, I should suppose they will
not stick on hand. If they should, you can at any time return
them. A few of them have the same date of publication as the
proofs, and consequently in the earliest state. I have met
with more success than I had hoped for in such times as these.
It is universally talked of, and I have orders for between 2 &
300 from the trade only.
“J. HEATH.”
“Aug 20, 1797.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS.
“A few days ago I sent an India proof of the ‘Dead Soldier.’
I should have sent you one before, but as the India paper was
not good, I did not take above three impressions, the best
of which you have. I have sent by to-day’s coach seven ‘Dead
Soldiers.’ Respecting the two pictures of Wright’s, of ‘Hero’
& ‘Leander,’ I mentioned it to L^{d.} Lansdowne, who has
promised to procure them for me if he can. Have you heard how
Wright is lately. If he is not dead, I shall think there are
hopes he may recover sufficiently to paint a companion for me.”
“1797.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS.
“I received (1797) yours with the bill enclosed. I am very
sorry to hear of Wright’s death, as I do not know now who to
get to paint a companion to the ‘Dead Soldier.’ I wish you
would say who you think would do it best. I mean to get the
pictures of ‘Hero,’ &c., as soon as L^{d.} Lansdowne comes to
Town, and with respect to Sterne’s ‘Old Man and Ass,’ I think
it would be a good thing to engrave. Mr. Corbould would be the
man to put the back ground to it.
“J. HEATH.”
“June 14^{th.} 1798.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS.
“I wish you would get the two pictures of ‘Hero’ & ‘Leander’
for me. I should like to engrave them very much. I have
mentioned them to L^d Lansdowne several times, but he seems to
hint that there is a family coolness which prevents him from
asking for them.
“The ‘Dead Soldier’ continues to sell very well, indeed so
much so, that I am very desirous of going on publishing for
myself.
“J. HEATH.”
“July 28, 1805.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS.
“Mr. Corbould desires me to inform you that he has finished
Wright’s picture. I should think it would be worth while to
engrave it, and if, after you have seen it, you think so too,
and would go halves in the speculation, I should like to do it.
“J. HEATH.
“Russell Place.”
“May 12, 1807.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS.
“My next work will be a companion to the ‘Dead Soldier.’
M^{r.} Smirke has nearly finished the picture. He had painted
one four years ago, but it did not quite please him, and he
has now succeeded more to his wishes.
“J. HEATH.”
“Feby., 1810.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS.
“I have often thought of mentioning to you the circumstance of
M^{r.} Morland’s having bought my Landscape of Wright’s for
16 Guineas, and his never offering to pay for it, although
it is so long ago. I wish for your advice, as you know his
circumstances better than I do.
“J. HEATH.”
It has been the custom to view Wright only as a painter of artificial
light, and for picture dealers and some others to attribute all unknown
pictures of fire in any form to “Wright of Derby.” We ourselves have
seen many so attributed, which would not add fame to any painter’s
name. The Exhibition of Wright’s Works in the Derby Corporation Art
Gallery, in 1883, tended to dispel this unfounded illusion as to the
limits of Wright’s art. Whilst the representation of fire-light in some
form or other was undoubtedly a speciality with Wright, this class of
subjects, after all, formed but a small proportion of the numerous
works then collected together.
On reference being made to the appendix it will be noticed that there
were many other important works painted by Wright which were never
exhibited; and as he did not always sign his paintings, they may
possibly now be attributed to other artists, or to the great _unknown_.
A picture that created considerable attention at the time it was
painted, was the “Destruction of the Spanish Floating Batteries off
Gibraltar,” on September 13th, 1782,[38] which was bought from the
easel by Mr. J. Milnes for £420, being the highest price Wright
obtained for a single picture. This was one of the works included in
the London Exhibition of Wright’s pictures in the year 1785, and
a notice of the Press of that date thus alludes to it:--“We shall,
however, at different periods lay before our readers a particular
account of these noble productions as they stand in the catalogue:
except that grand scene of the ‘Destruction of the Floating Batteries
off Gibraltar,’ which we cannot resist the present impulse of
mentioning out of its turn. In this picture, Mr. Wright has represented
a view of the extensive scenery, combined with the action on the 13th
Sept., 1782, in which his design is sublime, and his colouring natural
and brilliant beyond description. We never remember to have seen
shadows painted so little like substance as those in the foreground,
which gain great strength and richness from the prodigious brightness
of the grand explosion at a distance; but we feel ourselves inadequate
to the task of pointing out the various merits of this phenomenon
in the imitative arts, which proves the painter is unique in the
extraordinary line of the charming study he has so happily pursued.”
[Illustration: MISS DUESBURY.
_Original picture in the possession of Mr. George Dean, Derby._]
The following lines were written by Hayley, “On Wright’s Picture of the
Siege of Gibraltar”--
CALPE’S ADDRESS TO BRITANNIA.
“With patriotic pride, and national delight,
Ye Britons view me in the tints of Wright!
My rock’s the proof, that British Minds and Hearts
Are honour’s darlings, both in Arms and Arts;
With double triumph here let Britons say
Britons alone could rule this fiery fray;
This miracle of Art a Briton wrought,
Painting as boldly as his country fought.”
EXTRACT FROM A LETTER FROM BUXTON WELLS, JANUARY 3, 1785.
“Governor Elliot’s successful defence of Gibraltar has, among the many
essential advantages accruing from it, been productive of some of the
noblest works in the Fine Arts, especially among the painters. On
stopping at Derby a few days since, I was introduced by a friend to
view the productions of that great genius Wright, whose astonishing
power of expressing artificial lights on canvas, the world has long
been acquainted with. His new picture on the Siege of Gibraltar, for
composition, force, brilliancy, and prodigious effect of fire, exceeds,
in my opinion, all his former labours. To attempt a description of it
would be in vain; whoever sees the picture must have such an idea of
the action as no poetry can describe. Mr. Wright has not been in the
Exhibition (for reasons I cannot explain) for some time past, but that
he will not withhold this sublime piece from general inspection, I most
sincerely hope, as the attack on Gibraltar, with some other pieces on
interesting subjects, would form an Exhibition in every way worthy of
the countenance of the public.”
The “Orrery” picture was exhibited at the Society of Artists’ Rooms, in
1766, so must have been painted when Wright was thirty years old. It
was purchased by, and probably painted for, the Earl Ferrers, for the
sum of two hundred guineas; fifty pounds of this was paid on account,
and the remainder secured by a bond, of which a copy is given on the
next page.
The figures in the picture are all portraits, and various persons
have been mentioned as the probable originals who were thus honoured.
A copy of the print, once belonging to the artist, has certain names
written on the margin, with the date 1768, so that the following are
identified:--Jos. Wright, with his back towards the spectator, Mr.
Burdett taking notes, young Cantrell, Mr. A. Winterman, Mr. G. Snowden,
Mrs. Sale, and Mr. Denby as the philosopher.
Mr. Burdett also figures in the “Gladiator” picture. The other boy
sitter was a son of Earl Ferrers, as the following extract from the
“Stemmata Shirleiana” shows:--“Lawrence Rowland, 2nd Son of Robert 6th
Earl of Ferrers, Bap. at St. Alkmund’s Derby, Nov. 3, 1757, d. Feb. 5,
1773. His portrait when very young is preserved in Wright’s celebrated
picture of the ‘Orrery,’ well known from the engraving.”
The picture passed from the hands of the Ferrers family, and was sold
by Mr. Thos. Rought, of London, to the late Mr. Francis Wright, of
Osmaston Manor, by Ashbourne, for the sum of fifty guineas, in 1853.
In 1884, at the dispersion of Mr. John Osmaston’s collection, to whom
the picture then belonged, it was again in the market, and it is with
pleasure that we are able to record that, being purchased by a few of
Wright’s admirers, singularly, at the original price of two hundred
guineas, it was on September 4th presented to the Derby Corporation Art
Gallery as a memorial to the painter, where it will remain as a fitting
record of the admirable powers he possessed, and be admired by his
fellow-townsmen in years to come.
The bond mentioned above was as follows:--
[Sidenote: STAMP 1/6]
Know all men by these presents That we the Right Honourable
Washington Earl of Ferrers Peter Pery Burdett of Stanton
Harold in the County of Leicester Gentleman are held and
firmly bound to Joseph Wright of the Town of Derby Painter
in the sum of one hundred and sixty pounds of good & lawful
money of Great Britain To be paid to the said Joseph Wright or
his certain attorney Executors administrators or assigns for
which payment to be well & faithfully made We bind ourselves
and each of us by himself our & each of our Heirs Executors
& administrators firmly by these presents Sealed with our
seal Dated this Eleventh day of July in the third year of the
Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of
God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the
Faith & so forth and in the year of our Lord One thousand and
seven hundred and sixty-three The condition of this obligation
is such That of the above Bounden Earl Ferrers & Peter Pery
Burdett or either of them their or either of their Heirs
Executors or Administrators do and shall and do well & truly
pay or cause to be paid unto the above named Joseph Wright
or his certain attorney Exors. Administrators or assigns the
full sums of Eighty Pounds of Good and lawful Money of Great
Britain with lawful interest for the same on the eleventh day
of July which will be in the year of our Lord one Thousand
seven hundred and sixty-four. Then their obligation to be void
or else to remain in full force
Sealed & delivered being first duly stamped
in the presence of
W. WOTY
[Illustration: signatures Ferrers L.S. and P. P. Burdett L.S.]
From the following extract of a letter written by Wright to his brother
Richard, dated Rome, 13^{th} Ap., 1774, we learn that Burdett’s
behaviour caused Wright some anxiety as to his fulfilment of the bond:--
“I have just received a letter from Mr. Tate of Liverpool,
where he tells me M^{r.} Burdett has sold up his goods and
is off. M^{rs.} Burdett and her dear Miss Fredried are gone
into lodgings, over head and ears in debt. I stand no chance
of being paid at present--well, if ever; wou’d therefore have
you write immediately to Lord Ferrers and tell him how things
stand between me and Burdett, that he has not paid a farthing
of principal or interest of the four score pounds his Lordship
was bound for, w^{ch} I lent him in the year ’60 or ’61, that
he takes no notice of the letters I have wrote him lately
concerning the debt, must therefore look to his Lordship
for it. When you write to his Lordship send the amount of
principal and interest, and desire him to pay it as soon as he
conveniently can. If it is not convenient for him to pay the
whole, perhaps it will be prudent to take the interest only,
as that will secure y^e debt, and prolong the limited time
for payment. M^{r.} Fallows will advise you, give my respects
to that family. Tell his Lordship I would not apply to him
at this time for y^e money was I not much distressed for it,
travelling is very expensive.”
On the back of the bond, in Wright’s handwriting, is the following:--
“August the 23, 1776.
“Memo. This day the Earl Ferrers accepted a bill
drawn by me for Eighty Pounds, which when paid will be in full
for the principal of this Bond.”
[Illustration: Siganture Jos^{h.} Wright]
EXTRACT FROM “WINE AND WALNUTS.” BY PINE.
“Wright was celebrated for scenes that represented the effects of
fire subjects, which he painted with more truth to nature than even
Schalken, so far-famed.”
SUPPER AT MORTIMER’S.
“Upon my word, a delicate little hen turkey; what, a Christmas present
already! This turkey is from my old fellow-’prentice, Joe Wright,”
said Mortimer,[39] “who never forgets us at Christmas. Poor Joe,
the valetudinarian! I’d be sworn he procured one of the least in
all Derby out of sheer compassion to our evil habits. He knows we
always dress his Christmas turkey for supper, and he has generally a
hint by way of postscript to his letters, touching the prevalence of
apoplexy. Now Master Joe was one of your water-gruel disciples when
we were youngsters together at Hudson’s; and I would wager ten pounds
to a crown piece, he is just now sitting, Peter Grievous, over that
wishy-washy, tasteless, humdrum, drivelling dish, and calling to old
Nan Watkins--‘Nanny, have you any nice live coals? Do, pray, let me
have my bed warmed.’ Are you a supper eater, Mister Gibbon?”[40] “No,
Mister Mortimer; I am a single man, and a bit of a valetudinarian like
your friend Mister Wright.” “And a water-gruel eater, I presume?” said
Mortimer. “Yes, indeed,” said Gibbon, smiling; “though in truth, I do
not know that I am at all the better for these scrupulosities in diet.”
This playfully overdrawn picture of Wright’s habits was probably
written before Wright went to Italy. Wright was of very temperate and
abstemious habits, which, unfortunately, cannot be said of Mortimer.
Dr. Wolcott, as Peter Pindar, in one of his Poems, called Mr. Wright’s
moons silver sixpences; upon being remonstrated with, he said he had
not seen any of his moonlights, but supposed the moon must look like a
sixpence. Probably this was the passage that Mr. Holland disliked, when
he wrote the following lines, had them printed, and pasted them over
the passage in his volume of Peter Pindar’s Poems--
“Would’st thou paint _Landscape_, study Derby WRIGHT,
Where freedom, elegance, and truth unite.
_Rich sparkling tints_, grand shapes and masses show
How fine his pencil marks the Sunset’s glow;
Nor does his Master-hand less skillful seem,
When silver Cynthia quivers in the stream;
E’en Envy with approving smiles must own
In all WRIGHT paints, NATURE and WRIGHT are ONE.”
Mr. Holland showed the book to a friend, who exclaimed, “Well done,
Peter, I did not think he would have done Wright so much justice.”
The celebrated Dr. Darwin, who was on friendly terms with Wright, was
often consulted by him, respecting his “imaginary complaints,” as the
Doctor unjustly called them; and on one occasion told him, “he had but
one thing more to recommend, and that was what he would not give, but
he thought it would be to his advantage to be engaged in a vexatious
lawsuit.” The Poet Doctor alludes to Wright in his “Botanic Garden,”
Canto I., line 175, in the following lines--
“So Wright’s bold pencil from Vesuvius’ height,
Hurls his red lavas to the troubled night;
From Calpe starts the intolerable flash,
Skies burst in flames, and blazing oceans dash--
On birds in sweet repose his shades recede,
Winds the still vale, and slopes the velvet mead,
On the pale stream expiring zephyrs sink,
And moonlight sleeps upon its hoary brink.”
FROM THE “MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE OF DR. DARWIN.” BY ANNA SEWARD.
“In the course of the year 1770, Mr. Day stood for a full-length
picture[41] to Mr. Wright, of Derby. A strong likeness, and a dignified
portrait were the result. Drawn as in the open air, the surrounding
sky is tempestuous, lurid, and dark. He stands leaning his left arm
against a column inscribed to Hampden. Mr. Day looks upward as
enthusiastically meditating on the contents of a book, held in his
dropped right hand. The open leaf is the oration of that virtuous
patriot in the senate, against the grant of ship money demanded by King
Charles the First. A flash of lightning plays in Mr. Day’s hair, and
illuminates the contents of the volume. The poetic fancy and what were
_then_ the politics of the original, appear in the choice of subject
and attitude. Dr. Darwin sat to Mr. Wright about the same period. The
result was a simply contemplative portrait[42] of the most perfect
resemblance.”
Miss Meteyard, in her life of Wedgwood, says in Vol. II., page
442:--“Wedgwood in the previous year (1778) had bespoken a picture of
Wright, of Derby, who, neglected by his countrymen ‘would,’ as Wedgwood
said, ‘starve as a painter if the Empress of Russia had not some taste
and sense to buy these pictures now, which we may wish the next century
to purchase again at treble the price she now pays for them.’ Soon
after this Wright tried enamel painting, and towards the close of 1779
he promised to visit Etruria and ‘catch any help from its fires;’ but
it is not till subsequently that we hear of the fine picture he painted
for Wedgwood.”
Again, on page 508, Miss Meteyard writes:--“In 1784 Wright, of Derby,
painted for Wedgwood his celebrated picture of the Maid of Corinth, as
also a portrait which was probably that of the very friend who had as
far as possible replaced Bentley in his heart, Erasmus Darwin. After
some critical remarks on female drapery, Wedgwood, in writing to the
painter, said of the Maid of Corinth:--
“I do not say I am _satisfied_ with the lover, but that I think it
excellent, I had almost said inimitable, & I should quake for any
future touch of your pencil there. It is unfortunate, in my _opinion_,
that the maid shows so much of her back; but I give my _opinion_ only,
with great diffidence and submission to your better judgment. In one
word, you have been so happy in your figure of the lover, that almost
any other must appear to disadvantage in so near a comparison. Make her
to please yourself, and I shall be perfectly satisfied.”
“Six years previously Wright had painted for Mr. Wedgwood one of his
most celebrated pictures. Writing to Bentley the latter says:--‘I am
glad to hear that Mr. Wright is in the land of the living. I should
like to have a piece of this gentleman’s art, but think Debutades’
daughter would be a more apropos subject for me than the Alchymist,
though my principal reason for having this subject would be a sin
against the costume. I mean the introduction of our vases into the
piece, for how could such fine things be supposed to exist in the
earliest infancy of the potter’s art? You know what I want, & when
you see Mr. Wright again, I wish you would consult with him upon the
subject. Mr. Wright once began a piece in which our vases might be
introduced with the greatest propriety. I mean the handwriting upon the
Wall in the Palace of Belshazzar.’--Wedgwood to Bentley, May 5, 1778.”
Upon enquiry as to the present locality of the pictures Wright painted
for Wedgwood, we regret to learn that they were all lost to the family
early in the present century. It appears that they were sent to some
person in London for Exhibition, or for the purpose of being cleaned,
and whilst there were distrained for rent. The pictures were dispersed
and beyond recall before the Wedgwoods could interfere.
One of these pictures, a “Portrait of Sir Richard Arkwright,” was some
years afterwards presented to the Manchester Royal Exchange by Edmund
Buckley, Esq., where it now hangs.
On page 26, mention has been made of the friendship which existed
between Wedgwood and Wright, exemplified by Wright giving a painting
“to his friend Jos. Wedgwood, the patron and encourager of living
artists.” This friendship and generosity Wedgwood emulated upon the
occasion of the marriage of Wright’s daughter, Anna Romana, to Mr.
Cade, by the gift of a dinner service of 150 pieces.
Mr. F. G. Stephens sends me the following interesting copy of an
autograph letter:--
“Derby, 12th October, 1788.
“TO MISS SEWARD,[43] LICHFIELD.
“MADAM,
“I have repeatedly read your charming poem. The
subject you hold out for my pencil, as you have treated
it, is an excellent one; but how to paint a flaming sword
baffles my art. However, as soon as I find myself stout
enough, I intend to attack it. I admire the scenery. Would
it strengthen or weaken the character to lay it near the
sea, upon a rising ground, and through an opening among the
trees low in the picture to see the moon just rising above a
troubled sea? The point of time is when the sword is rising
out of the tomb, what kind of tomb should it be? To make it
a regular one would indicate Herver’s father had the usual
funeral rites performed, which the poem, I think, contradicts.
Your reflections upon this point will greatly oblige,
“Madam,
“Your most obedient h^{ble} serv^{t,}
“JOS^{H} WRIGHT.
“P.S.--Dr. Darwin, I hope, explained his mistake in returning
the poem before I had done with it.”
“May 5th, 1789.
MR. HAYLEY TO MRS. HAYLEY.
“I shall beg you & Mrs. Beridge to call upon friend
Wright & tell him, from me, that I & all the lovers of
painting with whom I have conversed, since my return to town,
consider his pictures this year as the flower of the Royal
Exhibition. His ‘Dying Soldier’ made me literally shed tears,
his ‘Moonlight’ enchanted.”
“Towards the end of August, 1776, Hayley and Mrs. Hayley went to Derby
for the pleasure of congratulating their friend Dr. Beridge on a
most seasonable marriage, that restored him from a state of perilous
discomfort to health and happiness. This visit was productive of
various delights. Hayley not only sympathised in the happiness of the
restored Physician, but in the weeks that he passed under his friend’s
roof he had the gratification of cultivating an intimacy with Wright,
the admirable painter of Derby, who, having injured his health by
too assiduous application to his art, had great comfort in the kind
attention he received from the friendly physician, & took a pleasure
in executing for Hayley two hasty portraits in chiaro-oscuro of Mrs.
Beridge & her husband, after painting for the Doctor the Poet of Sussex
and his ‘Eliza.’”[44]
The following is extracted from the “Life of Wm. Hayley, Esq.” by
John Johnson, LL.D., Rector of Welborne, in Norfolk:--“Hayley went to
Cambridge in 1763. Here he formed an intimate friendship with Thornton,
Beridge, & Clyfford, whose custom it was to breakfast together in the
apartments of each other. Hayley devoted some months of the year 1772
to his highly-valued friend Beridge, who had settled as a physician at
Derby. Hayley then copied in water-colours two bold sketches of scenery
near Matlock, lent to him by the very amiable artist Wright, of Derby,
with whom he began this year an intimacy that lasted to the death of
the painter, who frequently in his letters consulted his friend of
Sussex on the subjects of his pencil.”
The following extract is from the _Quarterly Review_, “Memoirs, &c., of
Wm. Hayley”:--
“Hayley’s son (Thomas Alphonso, the sculptor), was then in his
thirteenth year.... It had been Hayley’s first intention to educate his
son for the profession of physic, but many circumstances combined to
give him a strong inclination for that of the arts. During a visit to
Mrs. Hayley, Wright, of Derby, perceived in him so much aptitude for
painting, that he took pains in instructing him; and upon the report
of his progress, Flaxman wrote to his father, saying, ‘If you have
not quite determined to make him a physician, and if you think he has
talents for the Fine Arts, show yourself my friend indeed, and accept
my offer as frankly as I make it.’”
The offer was accepted, but this promising young artist died, after a
long illness, a few years later.
Extract from a letter from T. A. Hayley to his father, the poet:--
“Your letter to Mr. Wright, I delivered to his daughter, who happened
to be with us when it arrived, and he has been since so good as to give
me a few instructions in drawing.”
“A cordial friendship had long existed between Wright, the admirable
painter, of Derby, and the father of Alphonso; but the latter, in
writing to his friend, had only requested him to gratify the little
traveller with the permission of sometimes passing a leisure hour in
his painting-room, and with the indulgence of seeing him exercise his
pencil. The amiable artist, with that warm benevolence which formed
a striking part of his character, went beyond the request of his old
friend, and being more and more pleased with the intelligence, spirit,
and docility of his little visitor, spontaneously bestowed on him such
repeated instructions, as perfectly awakened in him a passion and a
genius for art, which, being afterwards inspirited by the affectionate
encouragement of his father, of Romney, and of Flaxman, ultimately
changed his very early professional destination from medicine to
sculpture.”
MR. HAYLEY TO MRS. HAYLEY.
“I am infinitely pleased with the first-fruits of the little
man’s northern pencil, and charmed with the kindness of my
friend Wright, in condescending to instruct such an urchin.”
T. A. HAYLEY TO MR. HAYLEY.
“I continue to draw, and you will be glad to hear with
the approbation of my great master. I shall have a great
collection of performances to show you when we meet. I hope it
will not be long before that happy moment arrives.”
MR. HAYLEY TO T. A. HAYLEY.
“I did not, I believe, send your medallion of Romney to
our amiable friend Wright. I wish you to present him such
a becoming mark of your gratitude for the extreme kindness
that we have ever received from him. Would to heaven I could
send him a good portion of health and spirits to attend your
interesting offering to the very amiable invalid. From all
of him I collect from Meyer, I fear his pencil has been very
inactive for some time. I always grieve when men of talents
are condemned by ill-health to involuntary indolence; and I
doubly grieve when that misfortune falls upon a friend whose
works I have often surveyed with delight.”
The following letter relates to the picture of the “Alchymist,” now
belonging to the Derby Corporation Art Gallery, having been presented
to that Town as a memorial to the painter, by a few of his admirers, in
1883:--
“DEAR WRIGHT,
“Dr. Turner will in his letter be more particular than I
can possibly be on a subject to which I am a stranger. I
have conceived that the chemist should be sitting on this
side the table, & turning his head towards glass upon his
assistant exclaiming upon the first appearance of the luminous
exhalation from the Retort into receiver of the phenomenon.
The lamp is still under the influence of the blast of wind
remaining in the bellows below which the chemist has been
using in another process. Whether this idea of the flame will
in the least answer your purpose you alone can judge; you will
wonder when you are told that I am painting History without
figure, Landscape without trees, and Shipwreck without water.
Mrs. Burdett joins me in love, compliments, and everything
else to your Family.
“Yrs sincerely,
“J. P. BURDETT.
“Liverpool, Feby. 4, 1771.”
From a letter on page 27, it appears that Wright took this picture with
him to Rome in 1774, where it was much admired.
[Illustration: GIRL WITH A BLADDER.
_Original picture in the possession of Mr. F. C. Arkwright, Willersley,
Cromford, Derbyshire._]
[Illustration: CONVERSATION PIECE.
THREE CHILDREN, RICHARD, ROBERT, AND PETER (SONS OF RICHARD
ARKWRIGHT).
_Original picture in possession of Mr. F. C. Arkwright, Willersley,
Cromford, Derbyshire._]
CHAPTER VIII.
CORRESPONDENCE OF WRIGHT WITH MR. DAULBY AND MR. J. L.
PHILIPS.--THE SHAKESPEARE GALLERY PICTURES.--DISPUTE ABOUT
PRICES.
“Derby, December 31^{st} 1779.
“TO D. DAULBY.
“The Empress of Russia has taken into Her capital collection
my two pictures of ‘Vesuvius’ & the ‘Girandolo,’ and given me
500 g^s for them which is a good reward accompanied with high
honour--40 g^s to a friend is as little as I can take for the
picture you saw of the Fireworks, if you mean that, if not it
will depend upon ye size & finishing of any other.”
“4^{th} June 1780.
“TO D. DAULBY.
“DEAR SIR,
“If nothing material happens to prevent me, I intend sending
by Shawcross on Monday morning, directed for M^{r.} Tate
as you desire, the picture of the ‘Girandolo’ which I hope
will get safe to hand, and meet with your and your friend’s
approbation. It is one of the highest finished pictures I
have painted. Cost me upwards of six weeks study, and was put
into ye exhibition at 100^{gs.} As you are only to send me
forty (which I must beg you to keep secret) you must look upon
it partly as a compliment on M^{r.} Tate’s account, and in
some degree a compliment to yourself as a well-wisher to and
encourager of the arts. With respect to the payment, I would
wish you to suit your convenience; any time in the course of
the next year will be agreeable to me.
“I have made no alteration in the picture, as I could not
with advantage, but most sincerely wish there had been such a
Rocket as you wish for. To add it now would destroy too much
ye unity of the picture.”
“TO D. DAULBY. “Derby, Nov 14^{th} 1785.
“DEAR SIR,
“The cavern with the figure of ‘Julia,’ which I exhibited in
the spring, is still in my possession. It was esteemed by the
artists the most sublime picture I ever painted, & so I think
myself. A rising moon always conveys to me great majesty.
“I think myself much honoured by your society. Pray make my
best compt^s to all the members, and believe me your much
obliged friend,
“JOS^{H.} WRIGHT.”
“I am going to have my picture of ‘Gibraltar’ raffled for by
eighty subscribers at five guineas a ticket. The subscription
is not yet opened publickly, though I have several names down.
“Danl. Daulby, Jun., Esq.,
“Liverpool.”
“MY DEAR SIR,
“Many thanks are due to you for the trouble you have had in
negotiating the business between Mr. Hardman and myself, and
of which I shall retain a grateful remembrance, as I have
had repeated proofs of your attention to my best interest, &
even in your last letter have anticipated my wish of making
my intention of disposing of the picture of ‘Gibraltar’ by
subscription as much known as possible in the circle of
your acquaintance, for it is not lawful without an act of
parliament to advertise a Raffle. I must, therefore, be
obliged to my friends to declare my intention of having eighty
subscribers at five guineas. I hope your friend Mr. Hardman
will not mention the price he gives for the pair of caverns,
as I have always had fifty guineas a piece for them of that
size.
“You say you hope I will excuse the free thoughts you have
intrusted me with respecting the large cavern with the figure
of ‘Julia.’ ’Tis the privilege of friends to be open to each
other, and if I knew what you really wished I would most
certainly accommodate myself to your inclinations. Will you
have the picture sent to you? If you approve of it keep it,
and pay me for it as shall best suit your conveniency. If you
do not like it return it, and we shall both be pleased, for as
it was esteemed by the artists the most sublime picture I ever
painted, I doubt not but I shall one day or other dispose of
it; and believe me, dear sir, with much esteem,
“Yours sincerely,
“JOS^{H.} WRIGHT.
“Derby, Jan. 14, 1786.
“Danl. Daulby, Jun., Esq.,
“Liverpool.”
“Derby, Feby. 7^{th} 1786.
“TO J. DAULBY, JUN.
“DEAR SIR,
“By the time this reaches you, I hope ‘Julia’ will be
near her journey’s end. I sincerely hope she will arrive in
good condition, and that ‘Abraham’ and ‘Isaac’ will not be
found to have lain too hard upon her. I did everything in my
power to keep her untouched and spotless. I should have sent
the picture off sooner, but the week the man who I trust to
pack my pictures was out, and the 2^{nd} Shawcross, after
promising me to take it, neglected it. ’Tis directed to Mr.
Tate, and to go by land carrier.
“I am persuaded by my friends to take the fashionable tour
of the Lakes next Autumn. I sounded my dear friend Tate upon
the scheme, but have not heard from him since. If we go your
company will be a happy addition, but I would have the party
small, none engaged in it but draftsmen, for reasons too
obvious to need mentioning.
“I am,
“Dear Sir, with much esteem,
“Yours very sincerely,
“JOS^{H.} WRIGHT.
“Dan^l Daulby, Jun., Esq^r
“Liverpool.”
“Derby, March 25^{th} 1786.
“DEAR SIR,
“I was sorry to be informed by our friend Tate of your
indisposition, and that you are still, by your own accts. a
cripple. Dr. Darwin, a very eminent physician of this town, is
very much disposed to gout, and he told me while he continued
in the use of wine he was affected with it. He left it off,
and drank nothing but ale and small beer. Still he had fits of
it, but much weakened. He then disused ale, drank nothing but
small beer, still he had a little gout about him. He has for
some time past drank nothing but water, and now he has no gout
at all. If this practice does not coincide with your opinion,
I know your good sense will excuse me taking the liberty of
mentioning to you, as your well-being is the sole motive.
“To Dan^l Daulby, Esq^r
“Liverpool.”
“Derby, Oct 5^{th} 1786.
“DEAR SIR,
“Mr. Smith gives this discription, which I have just received,
of the parts of your little picture:--‘The view is on the
shore of Posilipo in particular. The houses nearest in
view form part of the village of Mare Chiare, a place much
frequented by the lower class of people in Naples to spend
the summer evenings. They generally go by water, and are
regaled with hard eggs & good Falernian wine (the usual repast
brought from the neighbourhood of Pozzouli). The other house
or palazzo on the Hill in the distance is called the pallace
of 9 windows, but is inhabited only by servants. When you see
my good friend Turner make my best regards to him, and say
how much I am obliged to him & his friend M^r Whiatt for his
accurate account of Shakespear’s scenes. I am, dear sir, with
much regards,
“Yours,
“J. WRIGHT.
“To Danl. Daulby, Esqre.”
“Derby, Sep 4^{th} 1787.
“DEAR SIR,
“How welcome are the good tidings of returning health to my
dear Tate, which you have so kindly communicated to me. May
heaven speedily restore him to his former health & vigour. No
disease more compleatly debilitates the frame than a nervous
or putrid fever; and, if I have observed right, there is none,
considering the state the body is reduced to, from which it
is sooner reinstated. His premeditated attack upon the cold
roast beef was, I think, a very favourable presage of the
above observation. I sincerely hope he made an excellent
repast, and feels the good effect of it. Make my love to him
with every good wish for his felicity, in which this family
most cordially joins with me, and hope to have the pleasure
of seeing him here when convenient to him. I am going for
ten days (if it agrees with me) to Matlock. The Baths served
me some time ago, but from a particular circumstance, being
obliged to ride four & twenty miles the day I left, which so
fatigued me, my complaints returned upon me, nor can I wear
them off.
“’Tis now almost four months since I touched a pencil. Have no
particular complaint but general debility, which has reduced
me to so torpid a state I feel no inclination to pursue my art.
“I am, Dear Sir,
“Your most obedient serv^t
“JOS^H WRIGHT.
“M^r Jn^o Leigh Philips,
“Manchester.”
“5 May, 1789.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“I did not intend fixing a price upon my pictures in the
Exhibition till I got to Town, but having just received a
letter from M^{r.} Heath to know if the picture of the ‘Dead
Soldier’ was disengaged, and what value I set upon it, it
becomes necessary at once to fix the prices of those you
enquire after, and to have your answer by return of post, as
I must answer M^{r.} Heath’s letter. The picture of the ‘Dead
Soldier,’ framed, 100g^{s.} ‘Boy and Girl with a Bladder,’
50g^{s.} ‘Girl with a Charcoal Stick,’ 40g^{s.}
“I am very happy it was in my power to afford you and your
friends rational entertainment while with me. The felicity was
mutual, believe me; and that I am very sincerely yours,
“JOS^H WRIGHT.
“St. Ellens,
“5 May, 1789.
“My best compliments attend the ‘Triumvirate,’ in which
M^{rs.} Wright begs to join.”
“Derby, Dec. 4, 1789.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“Pray how is my friend Tate? He has given of late but a bad
account of himself; is obliged to live with great uniform
temperance, and deny himself that conviviality he is so well
calculated for. I wrote to him some little time ago, part of
which letter I make no doubt but you are acquainted with,
as it was my wish you should. You see I have enough of the
Devil in me to wish to retaliate upon the misguided Alderman
(Boydell), who I hear loses ground very fast, and will shortly
have none to work for him but his half-starved creatures.
“I am engaged at present and shall be for some time with
portraits, so that my historical pictures are, I fear, very
distant. However, I do not lose sight of them, and as the
hour’s exercise I daily take on horseback seems to contribute
much to my health, I hope to be a tiptop by and by to attack
’em.
“However light my friend Smith made of the gout when you was
with him, it has proved a serious affair to him, subjecting
him to much pain and a long disuse of his pencil. Pity it is a
man’s industry should prove an evil to him, and his laudable
endeavours to provide for his tender offspring frustrate its
own intention. Adieu, my good friend, and believe me yours
very sincerely,
“JOS^H WRIGHT.”
“St. Ellens, 24 June, 1791.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“Yesterday I received a letter from the Sec^y of the Spring
Gardens Exhibition to know the price I had fixed upon the
picture of “Antigonus,” a gentleman having applied for it, and
desired him to write to me. Mr. Barrow, the Sec^y told him
the conditions which I meant to part with the large pictures,
namely, that they should be engraved from, by capital artists
(which was not strictly what I meant). To this he had no
objection, and assured him if he purchased the picture it
should be engraved by M^{r.} Middiman, or some artist of equal
reputation. It should seem from hence the person who is about
the picture buys it with an intent to have a plate made from
it, which will preclude my having it done by Heath, though
from what you said to me last on that head, there are little
grounds for hope of that ever taking place. Pray do you know
the character of Mr. Middiman as an engraver?
“I should not have troubled my friend with this business (tho’
I am at all times and all occasions happy to have his advice)
had not my friend Tate, when last here, asked the price of the
‘Storm’ for your Brother, M^{r.} H. Philips, at which time
I did not give him a decisive answer. Therefore I think it
incumbent on me, before I treat with the Gentleman, to inform
you the price is 100g^{s.} and shall be glad of your answer by
return of post if convenient.
“The extremely cold weather immediately succeeding very hot,
has diseased me very much. I have had for some time past a
nervous fever hanging about me, and am now much disturbed
with an inflammation on my liver. Art stands still. Adieu, my
good friend, and believe me, with much respect,
“Yours very sincerely,
“JOS^H WRIGHT.”
“Derby, Sep. 24^{th} 1792.
“MY DEAR PHILIPS,
“This morning I have sent off by Shawcross a case addressed to
you, containing the book of drawings after Mic. Angelo, and
a slight sketch of a wild scene which I painted some years
ago. I looked it up the other day, and if you think it worth a
place in your collection, please accept it with my esteem.
“The picture of the ‘Ponte Salerno’ is in such a state I shall
not be able to finish it at present. I retouched the sky some
time ago & some other parts of the picture, & the colours are
changed in a most abominable manner. One never can depend upon
fresh colours laid on old. I hope the little picture I have
sent you will not share the same fate. I have finished the
‘Storm’ except the figure of Antigonus. Your Brother Frank
seemed to like it much; indeed those who have seen it give it
the preference to the other. I have brought ye ship nearer,
which heightens the distress of the scene; and being much
larger, the masts go above the horizon, and make a ballance to
the other side of the picture.
“I am going to begin a cottage on fire for a Gentleman at
Bristol. He has offered me 50g^{s.} to finish it highly. I
have also finished Tate’s ‘Moonlight,’ which is much admired.
I think I shall send it with the ‘Storm,’ not by way of
receiving the cash--for that I forbid--but to give you taste
and pleasure, for I flatter myself it will. Perhaps if he has
no place to hang it, you would give it house room till wanted.
“When I have thought a little more about manufacturing
pictures, and have digested a plan for such business, I shall
like it much, if I can get a sale for them. I have got two
or three on the stocks. The one is finished, the other far
advanced. The finished one is on a pannel, which I had by me,
but the smooth surface is not calculated for expedition. The
subject is ‘The Lake of Albano,’ sunset. Being done from one
pallet, there is great unity and harmony in the colouring.
When you have received the case, pray give me a line, for I
shall wish to know Mic. Angelo is safe in your possession.
Adieu, my good friend. Give my respects to M^{rs.} Philips and
all my friends, in which comp^{l.} Romana wishes to unite.
“I am, very sincerely yours,
“J. W.
“To J. L. Philips.”
“Nov. 29^{th} 1792.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“To have read such flattering accounts of my picture from all
hands is highly satisfactory to me, and none more so than
the last. With respect to the payment, as you are so kind to
take my cash into your hands, I wish you would place it with
the rest, and in a few posts I will remit between 5 & £600
to be added to the other sums. I thank you for your friendly
advice about the ‘Indian Widow,’ and tell our friend Tate,
who I suppose will communicate it to M^{r.} McNiven, that in
consideration of a little of his assistance to lay out my
property to advantage, I will deduct 10g^{s.} I sent it off by
Shawcross last Monday, and hope it will be safe in Manchester
ere this gets to hand. I have remembered the outline of
‘Vesuvius’ for friend Tate, which I should think may be
enveloped in smoke, but no fire should appear, indeed the hot
Lava does not show itself by daylight.
“I am glad to hear plates are in readiness for Mic. Angelo. I
fear I shall never do my part; my hand is too unsteady now for
lines. Adieu, my good friend. Romana wishes to join in best
remembrances to you & M^{rs.} Philips & your family, to our
dear friend Tate, Mr. Moreland, &c.
“Dear Sir,
“Your much obliged friend,
“JOS^H WRIGHT.
“Derby, Nov. 29th 1792.”
“Pray what is your opinion of the Stocks at this time? I have
a little property in, and have some thoughts of selling out.
I bought in about 76. The little picture on pannel is too
square; the right measure of ye frame at the end should cover
⅛^{th} in., and ye top and bottom ½″, which will bring the
picture into better proportion.”
The Plates for Mic. Angelo here alluded to evidently refer to the
reproduction on copper of some of Wright’s sketches from the “Sistine
Chapel,” for we find Wright sending the sketches to Philips on Sep.
24th, 1792. There is in existence an impression from copper of one
of them, partly in aquatint, but whether from the hand of Wright or
Philips it is now impossible to say.
“Derby, 31^{st} Dec., /92.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“Enclosed I send you Mess^{rs.} Crompton’s Draught on
Mess^{rs.} Ayton, Brassey, Lees, & Co., their Bankers, Lombard
Street, for £460, payable in fourteen days, which you will
be kind enough to acknowledge the receipt of as soon as you
can make it convenient. What you said in your last respecting
money matters makes an apology on this account unnecessary.
Nevertheless, I must say I feel the obligation very sensibly;
and now let me thank you for a Barrel of excellent oisters.
Your Brother H. spent part of a day with us. I was in a
working humour, so I did not let his visit stop the progress
of my pencil. He sat by me, and seemed pleased with the rapid
advance of my picture, for it was one of my playthings, or
sketches that I was engaged with, which, with six others,
I intend to send you next week for yours and my friends’
inspection. ‘A Morning Effect of the Lake of Albano’ is a
companion to Wilson’s ‘Evening Effect,’ for my dear friend
Tate. I wish it may be found a meet one. I have just prepared
a canvas the size of Tate’s ‘Moonlight,’ for an evening
effect on another view on the River Tay at Dunkeld, which,
if care and study will accomplish it, I intend it to be the
best picture I ever painted. I know not how it is, tho’ I am
engaged in portraits and made a complete dead colour of a half
length yesterday, I find myself continually stealing off and
getting to Landscapes.
“JOS^H WRIGHT.”
“Derby, 17^{th} January, 1793.
“MY DEAR FRIEND,
“I am glad to find, by my friend Tate, the box of Sketches are
got safe to hand, and that you approve of them. They ought,
as my friend may see by the direction, to have been delivered
almost a week ago. I can’t help doing too much to them as
sketches, and if any other person than yourself was to have
the culling of them, I should certainly charge something more
for those that were selected. You are then indebted to me for
three 30g^s, and if Tate cannot get more for the remaining
four, they must go at that price. I am sorry your Brother Hy.
did not fix the price for ‘Antigonus,’ as he knew all the
circumstances. He was certainly the proper person to have
done it, but since it is left to me, I must observe, I have
no claim upon him for more than 100g^s, as I offered him the
other picture for that sum; but in justice to myself I must
say it deserves more, considering the pains I took with it,
and the charges of the frame, &c., amounting to near £13; but
whether he chooses to give me the advanced price, £12Og^{s.},
must be at his option.
“Very Sincerely,
“JOS^H WRIGHT.
“I am sorry I cannot fulfil my engagement with M^{r.}
Moreland. M^{r.} Gisborne does not think himself at liberty to
divulge Smith’s mode of washing with water-colours.
“To M^{r.} J. L. Philips.”
“Feby. 26, 1793.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“M^{r.} W^{m.} Hardman called last night. I showed him the
pictures by candle-light, but I don’t think he could see them
well. They did not seem to reach his feelings, except a small
one of an effect of fire, seen through a dark group of trees,
with a large piece of water reflecting the objects about it.
Had he not in his possession the cottage, I believe he would
have purchased it. ’Tis a new subject, and rather a favourite
with me. If there should be an exhibition this year,
independent of ye Royal Academy, I perhaps may show it to the
public, as also the companion to the ‘Moonlight,’ in my friend
Tate’s hands, which, now being near finished, and if I flatter
not myself, will be a tolerable picture. ’Tis full of air, and
has depth, two necessary requisites for a Landscape.
“I have a great inclination to send you this fire piece to
look at. I think it would give you pleasure. If Manchester was
nearer I certainly would.
“How goes Mic. Angelo on? Can you give me _proof_ of your
abilities yet?
“I often wish I lived with you, that my productions might
receive the benefit of your strictures ere they go out into
the world, & myself enjoy your friendly conversation; but my
lot is cast otherwise. Adieu, my dear friend, and whether near
or distant, believe me ever yours,
“JOS^H WRIGHT.
“J. L. Philips.”
“King Street, Feby. 19, 1794.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“The day after you left us I set to work upon the picture of
‘Vesuvius,’ to remove the stiffness of the line of Lava made
across it (and which always dissatisfied me), by bringing
the trees more over it; but it would not do, for what proved
beneficial to the one was injurious to the other, by bringing
the groupe of trees & rock much in a line. I have therefore
illuminated the ground, over which the Lava is about to pass,
very strongly, set fire to the plants & raised a fresh smoke,
which here & there passes across the lava, & effectually
does the business. I have also increased the quantity &
brilliancy of the smoke which arises from the upper surface of
the lava, so that the centre of the picture is more lighted
up, & the general effect much improved. I have added the
forked lightning, which ever attends the dark smoke, & which
increases the horror of the subject without disturbing the
effect; and on Tuesday I intended putting in ye figures & the
finishing touches to your picture, when, alas! I was suddenly
seized with the sore throat & fever, a common complaint here.
My lungs (a weak part) have suffered much. I have a very bad
cough; my frame is much debilitated; the fever is abated.
Thank you for your attention (which is ever awake to serve
your friends) to ye exhibition business. As they have _long
ago thrown me on their shelf_, I do not feel inclined to sue
for protection, but perhaps when my nerves are more settled I
may see it in another light.
“Yours most sincerely,
“J. W.”
“Your picture of ‘Vesuvius,’ and one at Dunkeld, would have
been at Manchester before now, had not the frames of the
pictures which I exhibited been materially damaged at the
Academy. M^{r.} Milbourne has orders to put them into good
condition, & send them to you when done.
“Derby, June 29, 1794.”
“Derby, Dec. 27, 1794.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“Your relation (Mr. N. Philips), to whom I some time ago sold
the picture of the ‘City of Florence,’ called upon me last
week, & engaged the picture with the ‘Rainbow,’ the ‘Cottage
on Fire,’ & the small ‘Sea Storm,’ which I find he intends
sending to America. I am sorry the two first leave the Kingdom.
“He seems anxious that I should paint him the ‘Siege of
Toulon,’ for which he will not exceed 100^{gs.} The scenery
must be very complicated, & so many objects & incidents cannot
be painted for that sum. I sometime ago refused a like sum for
any sized picture I would paint of the ‘Siege of Gibraltar.’
“Did you not give me some hopes of seeing drawings by an
officer of the engagement at Toulon, or have I dreamt it? Pray
inform me soon, as I must satisfy Mr. Philips.
“JO^S WRIGHT.”
“Your letter has poured balsam into my wound. I have heard
nothing but humiliating observations on my pictures, which
have tended much to the inactivity of my pencil for some time
past. What a mere machine am I become, depressed and rendered
useless by a little censure, & put into motion again by a
little flattery. I really believe my enemies might easily
persuade me I have no pretensions to paint. What a thing have
these weak nerves made of me.”
“Feby., 1795.
“TO J. L. PHILIPS,
“I am sorry to learn from my friend Tate that he does
not acquit himself in the pictures of the Lakes to his
expectation. He is acquainted with my principles, such as
they are. I wonder he does not with more certainty avail
himself of them; but they are different subjects, and I have
sometime seen effects in ye country repugnant to common-sense
principles, and which I could by no means account for. I have
a picture in hand of the sort of Keswick Lake.
“Did you pick up much painting knowledge in your late visit to
the Captain’s, or only the quackery of the art? Would I had as
much strength as the Captain, I flatter myself I would carry
the art a great way.”
“30 March, 1795.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“I am sorry to find Heath still procrastinates. He was to have
begun on the ‘Dead Soldier’ in good earnest last Midsummer.
Another is approaching fast, & nothing more done to it. I
despair seeing it finished, & many of the subscribers to
my portion of the prints are dead. Well, patience, as the
Italians say, & you have as much need of it as I.
“The very severe winter we have had has almost demolished me.
Just after Xmas I paid a visit to my friend Gisborne. It was a
young trick of me to sally forth at that time of the year, but
he tempted me with sending his carriage; and wrapping myself
up in Flannels, I thought myself invulnerable. Unfortunately
for me it proved otherwise. I have been dreadfully ill
ever since. I am now wounded at so many points. I despair
of ever being well again. I have had Darwin’s advice, and
about a fortnight ago he ordered me to have a hot bath
every night, from 94 to 96 degrees of heat, in which I stay
half-an-hour. It has certainly braced me, & removed some
disagreeable sensations, but I am still too much oppressed
to think of handling the pencil, & what is worse I feel not
ye least inclination to paint. I am glad to hear my friend
Tate succeeds so well in water colors. I dare say when the
application of them is well understood, it is pleasant work.
Make my best regards to him, to Mr. Philips, and to all my
friends, and believe me with much esteem yours most truly,
“JOS^H WRIGHT.”
“May 29 /95.
“I wish for my own sake--as well as for your feelings--for I
know you participate in the good or ill which attends your
friends that I could give a better account of myself. I have
now been five months without exercising my pencil, and without
a hope that I shall again resume it. I seem to have outlived
my art, a reflection, tho’ in no way favourable to the
restoration of my health, will continually obtrude itself upon
me.
“I am glad to hear my good friend has laid hold of his brushes
again. Paper and camel hair pencils are better adapted to the
amusement of ladies than the pursuit of an artist. Give my
love to him, & tell him he should not avail himself of my long
silence, the effect only of ill-health. I wish to hear from
him.
“I understand by your relation y^t you have built a steam
house, which is productive beyond credit, & that you are
over-run with cucumbers. If this is really the case, pray let
2 or 3 run over to Derby. Am not I very impudent?”
“Derby Oct 2^{nd} 1795.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“I take up my pen with much pleasure to communicate to my dear
friends at Manchester, ‘who participate in my welfare,’ that
a few days ago, after a truce to my pencil for ten _dreadful
months_, I felt the dawn of inclination to resume it, and on
Friday last made, with trembling hands, some feeble efforts.
Disuse and the loss of much strength has made the employment
rather vexatious, but facility will come in proportion to my
practice.
“I thought I should never have had it in my power to finish
the pictures your relative engaged, but they are now within a
few hours of being compleated.
“The picture of the little elegant bit of scenery at Rydall,
which my friend Holland mentioned to you, is not near being
finished. The water indeed is further advanced than ye rest of
ye picture, for I was keen to produce an effect which I had
never seen in painting of shewing the pebbles at the bottom
of the water with the broken reflections on its surface.
But I have not succeeded to my wish, & Holland, who sees
all my works thro’ the most partial medium, has colored his
description too highly. So highly finished is that little bit
of nature that to do it justice it should be painted upon ye
spot.
“Your account of the Isle of Man makes me wish to see it.
We often see fine shaped rocks than fine coloured ones; the
patches of different colours are not large and distinct enough
to have effect at a distance. The different hues are produced
by small mosses rather than by original colours in the stones.
“JOS^H WRIGHT.”
“Derby, Dec 18^{th} 1795.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“I am at all times very happy to hear from you, and if at any
time there is the appearance of omission, the multiplicity of
your avocations make your apology.
“I have had too many substantial proofs of your attention to
my interest to doubt ye sincerity of your friendship to me. I
should be highly to blame, without cause, to deprive myself of
so inestimable a blessing.
“I have put the last touches to your little finished bit of
scenery of ‘Rydal Waterfall,’ which you have commissioned me
to send you, which I will do as soon as it is dry enough to
pack safely; but, that you may not take it upon the character
of my friends, who, as I said before are partial and sanguine,
you shall, if it meets not with your entire approbation, have
the power of returning it. Your feelings upon the occasion may
be different to theirs, and I would not have you buy a pig in
a poke. It is a very intricate subject, and I never wished
myself out of a wood so much in my life.
“I shall continue to work a little almost every day, & if
the spasms upon my lungs keep off I hope to gain strength. I
cannot describe the pleasure I feel upon resuming the pencil
when I am tolerably well.
“JOS^H WRIGHT.”
“I have sent off to Nottingham your kinsman’s pictures, where
they are to remain sometime ’ere they are to be sent to
America.”
“Derby, 11 Apl., 1796.
“Ill-luck ever attends my pursuits. A few days after you left
me, I was again visited with an asthmatic fit, which was in a
day or two succeeded by a second, whereby I was so debilitated
I could not employ my pencil at all for many days, & have not
since found my exertions equal to the great picture; have
therefore given up all thoughts of exhibiting it this year at
least, whatever I may be induced another, but, from abuses I
have received from the Academy, I never feel very anxious to
get among them. They are in general an illiberal set of men, &
the less one has to do with ’em the better.
“JO^S WRIGHT.”
Wright painted two pictures for Alderman Boydell’s Shakspeare Gallery,
viz:--“Prospero in his cell, showing a visionary spectacle to Ferdinand
& Miranda,” for which he received 300 guineas; and “The Storm in the
‘Winter’s Tale,’” for which 140 guineas was paid.
Wright addressed the following letter to the Alderman respecting the
former picture:--
“Derby, 12^{th} March, 1789.
“SIR,
“I should have sent you the dimensions of the picture by
return of post, but it was till to-day so folded up it could
not be measured with any accuracy. The exact size is 12ft. 0¼
in. by 8ft. 6in., to hang horizontally. It will be necessary
to have a good straining frame, with the inner edge well
rounded off, for if left square it always makes a mark in the
picture. The reason I mention a fresh straining or wedging
frame is, the one the picture is on has been cut in so many
places to accommodate it to my painting-room; it is too weak
to use again but for the purpose of painting on, if I should
again have occasion for so large a one.
“The picture is now finished, unless a fresh eye discover
anything in a few days to be corrected. I most heartily unite
with you in wishing I may make a conspicuous figure in your
exhibition.
“The picture by the time you will want it, will, I hope, be
dry enough to roll upon a cylinder without damage, which I
think the safest way of sending it, for it is much too large
to go flat.
“I am, Sir,
“Your very humble Serv^{t.}
JOSEPH WRIGHT.
“Mr. Alderman Boydell,
“Cheapside,
“London.”
Before Wright painted the Bear in the “Storm,” he wrote to Gilpin for
his opinion, who sent him some sketches of Bears (one of which was
introduced in the picture), with the following letter:--[45]
“Knightsbridge, Wednesday.
“DEAR SIR,
“I send you the enclosed sketch as soon as possible, that
I may have time to make a more finished one if it does not
answer your purpose. If it does not, please let me know by
return of post, and I will go a Bear hunting to the Tower,
or somewhere or other, and sketch one from nature, if
possible.... I think with you, that the pursuit is better than
the horrid act of tearing.
“Your sincere Friend and Servant,
“S. GILPIN.”
Hayley, in his life of Romney, thus alludes to Wright and his
engagement to paint for Boydell’s Shakspeare Gallery:--“Nov. 4^{th}
1786. Mr. Josiah Boydell entertained the little party of friends to
the projected Gallery whom he has named in his preface to Shakspeare.
I wrote nothing in its favour except a brief sketch, and a letter
to engage my friend Wright, of Derby, to paint for the Gallery. My
application to Wright was made at the earnest desire of the Alderman.”
It appears that when the time for payment came, Wright was dissatisfied
with what Boydell offered to him for his picture of “Ferdinand and
Miranda.” Whether Hayley, the poet, who appears to have been the
go-between for the painter & Boydell, placed the matter before Wright
in such a light that Boydell did not afterwards approve of, it is now
impossible to say. Wright, however, wrote the following letter, which
drew forth a characteristic reply from Boydell, who adopts the usual
plan of “abusing the plaintiff.”
“Derby, July 26^{th} 1789.
“TO ALDERMAN BOYDELL.
“SIR,
“I understood by my friend M^{r.} Hayley, that, forming a
Gallery of pictures from the works of Shakespeare was first
agitated in a private party, of which he was one; that the
artists were to be classed, ye first class to consist of Sir
Joshua, M^{r.} West, M^{r.} Romney, &c., and your humble
servant; that those in that class were to have 300g^{s.} a
picture, more or less, according to the size & work they
might have in them; and that he was extremely happy to find
the artists had entered upon this most laudable work with a
spirit & liberality that reflected the highest honour upon
them, resolving to sacrifice interest to fame. On these
grounds I began and finished my picture upon the largest size
then proposed. In the course of executing my picture, which,
through ill-health, was much protracted, I learnt from good
authority that ye original plan was quite deserted, that you
bought pictures of any size (and which were not designed for
the Gallery), and that the artists painted their subjects on
such sized canvasses as they thought proper, and made the best
terms they could with you. This, I have reason to believe, is
the case, from what I saw and heard when in Town last. Upon
your asking me when in the Gallery (together) what I expected
for my picture, I told you that, being very remote from the
scene of business, I was unacquainted with the prices you had
given; that I should leave myself to you, not doubting but
you would pay me as you had ye rest, upon which, pointing to
one of M^{r.} Northcote’s pictures, you answered, We give him
25Og^{s.} And, pray, said I, what do you give to M^{r.} West
for his? Oh, replied you, was I to pay all ye artists as I
have done M^{r.} West, I might soon shut up the Gallery. I
felt much mortified at this unworthy treatment, for such I
cannot but think it, and left you.
“Now, Sir, I knew at the time, and have been confirmed in it
since, that you gave Sir Joshua 5OOg^s for his small picture,
and a very considerable fee besides; also, that you gave
M^{r.} West 5OOg^s for his picture, and yet you were paving
the way to offer me a much less sum. Is not my picture as
large as M^{r.} West’s? Has it not equal, nay, more, work
in it? Is it not as highly finished? And has not the public
spoken as well of it? Then why should you attempt to make a
difference in our price? Till you can give me a satisfactory
reason why I should take less, I shall certainly expect the
same. Had the work been carried on by the artists, with that
generous and laudable spirit which my friend Hayley held out
to me, I would have scorned to have been behind the most
liberal of them; but for me alone to adhere to the first plan
would be the highest folly, as I should thereby not only lose
the pecuniary advantage, but endanger my reputation, a point
which I consider as of far greater moment.
“I mentioned the circumstances to some of my friends in Town,
& to others since my return into the country, and they all
agree that I have strong reasons to complain of your treatment.
“I am, Sir,
“Your Obedient
“JOS^H WRIGHT.
“P.S.--I heard also when in Town from very respectable Artists
that you had agreed to give M^{r.} Copley 1000g^s for his
picture. If so, your conduct in this business is most strange.”
“Cheapside, Aug. 3 /89.
“SIR,
“I sit down to answer the most extraordinary Letter I ever yet
received, wherein you inform me of a great many circumstances
that I never heard of concerning the conduct of a work that I
thought I was somewhat acquainted with.
“You begin your letter by telling me that you understood that
I had classed the Painters according to their rank, and you
gave me a list of the first class, in which you place your
own name. Now, Sir, I never presumed to class the Painters. I
leave that to the public, to whose opinion and judgment I bow
with great reverence & respect.
“At the same time I am free to confess that had I ever
presumed to have classed the historical painters of this
country, perhaps M^{r.} Wright’s name would not have stood
exactly where he has been pleased to place it himself.
“In the line of landscape, I confess it would have been a
different consideration.
“I find it would be too tedious to go through all the
ridiculous assertions that your very extraordinary Letter
contains. I shall therefore leave you to enjoy your notions,
however unfounded, and proceed immediately to business. I
never offered you any specific price for your picture. You
asked me what I had given for pictures of that size. I told
you the prices. You knew that 300 guineas was the utmost
stipulated sum, and, in one word, Sir, I will not give you any
more.
“And this I offer, not so much for the merits of the picture,
as that you nor no man may have reason to complain of my
want of liberality. You are, indeed, the first that ever has
complained on this subject, with what justice I leave the
world to judge. When I look at the merits of the picture, it
deserves no such sum; for however excellent the landscape part
of it may be, the figures are very faulty, and so much out of
drawing, that it will give no little trouble to correct it for
the engravers.
“As to whatever prices I have given, or may hereafter give
to any artist, in this or any other undertaking, I shall
certainly not consult Mr. Wright, and his attempting to dictate
to me on this subject is perfectly ridiculous.
“I am, Sir,
“Your humble Servant,
“JOHN BOYDELL.
“Copy, J. R. Harrison.”
Notwithstanding the Alderman’s disparaging remarks, Wright painted two
other Shaksperian subjects, viz.: “The Tomb Scene in Romeo & Juliet,”
and another of the “Storm,” with Antigonus pursued by a bear. The
former he never sold; the latter was purchased by Mr. Henry Philips.
Reference to these two pictures will be found in the following
correspondence:--
“Derby, June 17^{th} 1790.
“MY DEAR FRIEND,
“I cannot stomach the application you wish me to make to him,
to come forward in my defence. Nor if I could, do I think it
would be of any use. Long, who, our friend Tate knows, is his
most intimate friend, & whose judgment he holds in the first
rank, is intimately connected with the proprietors of the
work. Therefore, there is but little room to hope he would do
anything to serve me, that would in any wise injure a work
they themselves were the first planners of.
“I am extremely obliged to you for the very flattering account
you have sent me. Things seem to work to our wishes, & the
Alderman’s conduct will, I hope, soon be completely dissected.
I much wonder that Vasari has not appeared again ere now.
Perhaps he is intimidated. There appeared an odd paragraph in
one of ye papers a few posts ago: ‘The Prince of Pick-pockets
has given instructions to his attorney to prosecute a printer
for a libel on his character.’ As yet nothing has appeared
that will come under that denomination, _I hope_.
“I would most willingly write to M^{r.} Heath respecting
plates being made from the two pictures, but I hardly know
what to propose to him; & if, on account of the Picture of
‘Romeo & Juliet,’ which has been so much decry’d, he should
have objections, it might embarrass him to decline it to
me. You have had so much trouble on my account, I really am
sorry to ask you to write a short letter to sound him in the
business; but he would be more explicit to you than me.