Completed Portraits: British 18th C, Portraits: British 19th C 19 Did William Marshall Craig paint Francis Egerton's portrait?

Francis Egerton, Third Duke of Bridgewater
Topic: Artist

Possibly by William Marshall Craig. For in 1812 Charles Picart executed a stipple engraving of this composition after Craig. However, was Craig himself working from another artist's work. This print was published in The British Gallery of Contemporary Artists (impression in the British Museum).

Art UK artist page: http://artuk.org/discover/artists/craig-william-marshall-17651834

Martin Hopkinson, Entry reviewed by Art UK

Completed, Outcome

Edward Stone,

It has been recommended that this painting is a later derivation from William Marshall Craig's portrait of the Duke of Bridgewater. It is now listed as after William Marshall Craig. This amendment will appear on Art UK in due course.

Thank you to all for participating in this discussion. To those viewing this discussion for the first time, please see below for all comments that led to this conclusion.

18 comments

Jade Audrey King,

See also the NPG's 'Francis Egerton, 3rd Duke of Bridgewater' by Charles Picart, after William Marshall Craig, stipple engraving, published 1812: http://bit.ly/2apx93A

Cliff Thornton,

Apologies if this is slightly off topic. I am amazed that a man so famous in his own lifetime as the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, appears to have been captured in only one portrait. All of the engravings of him seem to be derived from this one painting.
Stranger still is the fact that this portrait is a side profile showing the left hand side of the Duke. Is the artist making a statement, or was he acting under instructions from the sitter?
I suggest that the latter may be the case. Look at the other portrait of the Duke, also in the collection at the Salford Art Gallery
http://artuk.org/discover/artists/craig-william-marshall-17651834
The right hand of the Duke appears in an unnatural position, it looks emaciated, with the fingers distorted from their natural alignment. Biographies of the Duke refer to his sickly childhood, and how he was the only male child to reach his majority, the others dying of consumption - which we would now diagnose as tuberculosis. Could it be that the Duke was embarrased by a childhood disfigurement caused by TB, and this was the reason that he sat for only one portrait, and that work is painted from his "good" side?
The other portrait of the Duke was painted after his death, when the artist had the freedom to depict the sitter as he wished.

Osmund Bullock,

Very interesting idea, Cliff.

The BM image of the 1812 Picart engraving is clearer than the NPG one: http://bit.ly/2asn1ES

The engraving is captioned as being "after an original drawing" by Craig - perhaps the 'Portrait of a Nobleman' he exhibited at the RA in 1800 (the Duke of Bridgewater died in 1803). I see no reason for suspecting that Craig's drawing was after another artist - he was a very successful artist in his own right, and exhibited many portraits of high-status sitters from the 1790s. He was primarily a miniaturist and watercolour artist, and from 1812 Painter in Watercolours to the Queen (and Miniature Painter to the Duke & Duchess of York). In fact, though I can't be sure, the high catalogue numbers on his RA exhibited portraits suggest few, if any, were in oils; the same seems to be true of online images of prints after his portraits.

In any case, this oil looks to my eye like a much later work. Compared with the print, there is all manner of fussy extra detail - especially the transformation of the chair into a mass of carved wood that seems thoroughly Victorian (and late Victorian at that). The whole feel is very much that of a late-C19th idea of the Georgian, not the real thing: I imagine it was concocted for contemporary taste using the Picart print as a starting-point. I feel sure it's nothing to do with Craig, who died in 1827.

Osmund Bullock,

Actually it's clearly not "late" Victorian at all (oh, for an 'edit' facility!), as the picture was presented to the gallery in 1868. But the donor, Thomas Agnew, presented an identically-framed portrait of James Brindley, the Duke's consulting engineer on the Bridgewater Canal project, to the gallery at the same time: http://bit.ly/2aM7Nix . It is a much-altered (and reduced) copy of a 1770 original now in the NPG ( http://bit.ly/2awDgVe ) - there are also prints of this, albeit reversed. The two Salford portraits (of Bridgewater and Brindley) are said to be somewhat different in size (by 5-7 inches), though I must say they don't really look it in this shot of them hanging side-by-side: http://bit.ly/2aRGv8H . I wonder if the measurements given are accurate - it seems quite possible that Agnew commissioned both paintings for presentation to the gallery as a pair, more or less, and that both therefore date from the 1860s.

Here is another oil version of the Bridgewater portrait - probably photographed in America in the 1960s/80s, when presumably awaiting sale by auction (though no other info is given): http://bit.ly/2aAg2vb . Again it looks to me to be a later copy of some sort.

Dave Evans,

Is it possible that there is an inscription (or even a signature) perhaps partially obscured by the frame? Enlarging the image seems to show most of a capital 'B' in the bottom right just to the rear of the chair.

I'd also agree with Osmund that the larger composition is likely a later concoction based on the engraving rather than vice-versa. Particularly the way the face and hair is delineated seems somewhat at odds with the depiction of the furniture and the paraphernalia on the desk, as if the artist was consciously trying for a 'Georgian' style a la Fuseli or Blake.

Barbara Bryant,

I can't quite see the letter Dave refers to. In any case it would be a good idea to have an enlarged image of that area to the lower right, as well as the sheet of paper on the desk, which certainly has some writing on it.

Dave Evans,

I've isolated and magnified the 'B' (if that's what it is) in the attached file. The title of the document on the table certainly starts with 'Canal' possibly followed by '& Ship'. I would imagine it is intended to represent the 1759 act of parliament that enabled Bridgewater to start on his canal.

1 attachment
Martin Hopkinson,

It may be relevant that a member of the Wedgwood family, John Taylor Wedgwood, son of Thomas Wedgwood II made a stipple engraving after a representation of the Duke in profile [British Museum] . A ceramics specialist might know of a medallion of him to which the portrait may relate.

Osmund Bullock,

There *is* a Wedgwood profile plaque, Martin, but it's earlier (1780) and not related to the BM print you reference ( http://bit.ly/2aViZef ): http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/1298396 . The NT at Tatton Park also has a c1790 miniature of Bridgewater that unfortunately puts paid to Cliff's idea that the right-hand side of the Duke's face may have been disfigured from childhood (though of course he could have suffered a stroke or something later): http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/1298383

Osmund Bullock,

The JT Wedgwood print of the Duke is one of two very similar stipples apparently published not long after the Duke’s death in March 1803 – the other is by James Heath: http://bit.ly/2ao5pdS . Another version engraved by Edward Scriven was published in 1833: http://bit.ly/2aSK0xG . The latter confusingly dates the sitter’s signature below the image to 1788, leading many sources (including Wikipedia) to mistakenly date the image to that year. A wax profile of 1803 by Peter Rouw at the NPG ( http://bit.ly/2aLj3dC ) is also probably posthumous and related.

The later Scriven print identifies the original artist as Craig, as does the 1812 Picart engraving already discussed, albeit with an error in the initials ( http://bit.ly/2asn1ES ) – and yet these two are rather different images. Did Craig draw/paint two different, but related portraits – or was his profile of the elderly Duke, slumped with drooping head in his chair, adapted after his death to present a stronger, erect head more suited to the memory of a hugely wealthy nobleman and "father of British inland navigation"? My guess is the second.

Actually I think I have found an image of Craig’s drawing. The Duke of Bridgewater Archive at the University of Salford holds a “photographic print of a painting or drawing of the Duke of Bridgewater in old age” ( http://bit.ly/2ax38N4 ). There is mention, too, in the archive of several other images of the Duke, though most are prints. This one, however, seems to be the one they have illustrated (cropped, unfortunately) as part of a feature on the Bridgewater Canal. See : http://bit.ly/2aD6IWR and http://bit.ly/2aXGgJk . It is very close, but not identical to the 1812 Picart engraving, and I believe must show Craig’s original drawing/watercolour.

Martin Hopkinson,

the drawing in the image in the Duke of Bridgewater archive at the University of Salford found by Osmund certainly seems to be of a higher quality than the painting

Jade Audrey King,

I have asked the collection if a high resolution image can be posted on this discussion. I'll pass on any response.

Jade Audrey King,

Please find attached (only whilst this discussion is in progress) a high resolution image of this painting.

This file is owned by the collection. It has been posted here at their discretion and is not to be reproduced under any circumstances.

1 attachment
Barbara Bryant,

Preliminary to wrapping up this discussion, as it has not yet come to a conclusion, we might restate what has been established above. Several prints derive from William Marshall Craig's "drawing" of the Duke of Bridgewater--by Picart, by Scriven, by Heath and by JT Wedgwood. The Duke's head appears in two positions: upright and bowing. The painting at Salford derives from one of the prints. It was given to the museum by Thomas Agnew, who was from Manchester and whose business as an art dealer and print publisher began there. Agnew was a great benefactor of the museum in Salford, the town where he resided and where he died in 1871. In 1868, he gave this oil, along many others, including portraits of worthies, some without attributions, suggesting that they were copies. The oil of James Brindley (also deriving from an earlier work) depicted the engineer responsible for the Bridgewater canal which the Duke financed.
Osmund's suggestion that Agnew commissioned both paintings for presentation to the gallery seems about right, but I would suggest they were not just a pair but part of a group of oils given by Agnew showing famous individuals, some local, some associated with manufacturing. The painting is a recreation of the Duke at work using one of the known engravings of him. The print after Craig's drawing appeared in at least one compendium publication of "illustrious and eminent personages" in the 1830s and was thus readily available as a source.
So to answer the question, this painting itself is not by William Marshall Craig, but is a later derivation from his portrait of the Duke of Bridgewater.

What is also worth adding is that the actual "painter" of this work was never the point of it. At the time of the publication of the catalogue of paintings at Salford (1883), no artist was listed for this work, nor for some of the other portraits Agnew gave in 1868, confirming that these paintings of worthies were arranged by Agnew for presentation to the gallery as depictions of famous individuals, along the lines of a northern National Portrait Gallery.

Barbara Bryant,

Further research in the archives of the museum might reveal more about Agnew's role but for now I propose we close this discussion on the basis of my comments in the last posting. We have answered the original question: this painting itself is not by William Marshall Craig, but is a later derivation from his portrait of the Duke of Bridgewater.

Edward Stone,

The collection has been contacted about this recommendation.

Salford Museum & Art Gallery,

Yes, I am happy for Barbara Bryant's last comments to be the conclusion for this discussion. Thank you Barbara for your summing up.