Completed Dress and Textiles, Portraits: British 19th C, Scotland: Artists and Subjects 18 When did Jean Armour have her portrait painted by John Moir?

Jean Armour
Topic: Subject or sitter

I've just finished a novel called 'The Jewel', about the life of Jean Armour (due to be published by Saraband in May 2016) and came across this painting in the course of my extensive research. Intrigued, because it seems to be the youngest image we have of Jean, I did some further research about the artist and the possibilities of when this might have been painted. Aberdeen University Library was very helpful but could find no record of the picture in the Moir family papers.

Although it is dated 1831, Jean looks considerably younger than she would have been at that date. She died in 1834 and had suffered from strokes before that. The two later portraits by other artists depict a much older woman with her face marked by ill health – yet these are the most well publicised images of her. But it is a matter of fact that Jean visited Edinburgh and the East Coast of Scotland c.1812, 1813. Aberdeen-born Moir had a successful studio in Edinburgh and was exhibiting to some acclaim in 1812. The woman in the portrait – a 'bonnie' woman indeed – looks as though she might well be in her forties, rather than the elderly and frail woman she would have been twenty years later, which leads me to wonder if she sat for Moir when she was visiting Burns's friend Mr Thomson in Edinburgh – and then perhaps he finished the painting much later, when he heard that she was failing in health.

I've incorporated this speculation into my novel – but it does seem as though this portrait of the poet's wife is by way of being an undiscovered gem – it would be nice to see it fully restored if funding could be secured, and on occasional display, as well as perhaps loaned for appropriate exhibitions.

The collection note:

'We know very little about this portrait. We don't know its provenance or how it came into our collections. There's some research for us to do, but if anyone knows anything that would be great. Catherine came in to view the picture, as anyone is welcome to do by appointment. It's condition isn't very good, so it would be good to get some conservation work done on it... I've got it on my list.'

Catherine Czerkawska, Entry reviewed by Art UK

Completed, Outcome

This discussion is now closed. It was concluded that this portrait of 1832 cannot realistically depict Jean Armour in her late sixties, so the title has been amended to ‘Portrait of an Unknown Woman (previously known as Jean Armour)’.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussion. To anyone viewing this discussion for the first time, please see below for all the comments that led to this conclusion.

17 comments

Anne Thomas,

This probably doesn't help much, but she is wearing a widow's cap, so it must have been painted after 1796

Catherine Czerkawska,

Many thanks to Elinor from Rozelle, for letting me see the portrait! To be honest, I'm not sure this really is a widow's cap. It's a fairly typical Regency bonnet although perhaps the artist arranged it as a peak, mindful of Jean as a widow of a great man. I think she's not so much in mourning as in maturity. We can be certain that this was painted after 1796 because she would have been only 31 when her husband died, and certainly didn't start to travel to Edinburgh till much later on in her widowhood, when her children were older. Also, I think Moir didn't really achieve much prominence till around 1812. I'd love to know how the picture came to be in the collection though!

Eileen McKoy,

Dear Catherine: I am delighted to learn your novel on Jean Armour will soon be published. If, as a result of your research, this is indeed a portrait of Jean Armour you have fulfilled the hopes of many that such a painting exists. It is a spectacular find. I do hope the collection can find a record of the portrait's provenance. I would also dearly like to know how the portrait of Maria Riddell came into the collection at Baird Institute from Kingston Lacy, where it was originally exhibited.
Sincerely, Eileen McKoy

Osmund Bullock,

To my eye I'm afraid it does look in every way like a portrait of the late 1820s or 30s - but that's as much to do with overall 'feel' as it is from an in depth knowledge of women's dress and hair. Perhaps we can get a more expert view on this - Lou or Betty?

I suspect, though, that the 1831 date (actually 1832 according to the UK Art listing) is right - and that must throw serious doubt on the sitter's identity. However flattering, this cannot surely be a woman of 67 who has borne nine children? I don't think it looks like a copy of an earlier work, either, though I suppose it could have been a deliberate attempt on the part of the artist to show her in her prime - she was pretty famous during her lifetime - but lacking any knowledge of the appropriate period style.

Catherine Czerkawska,

She was certainly in Edinburgh several times from 1812 onwards and through the 1820s. Gilbert Burns and his wife were in Lothian by that time and Jean visited the family often as well as spending time with George Thomson's family in Edinburgh. The face is - in my opinion - very much a younger version of Jean's face as it is depicted in the later paintings when she is marked by age and illness. But you're right that it looks more like a woman in her 40s, which she would have been when Moir was in his prime, exhibiting in Edinburgh. I suspect - pace Ockham - that the simplest explanation, that Moir sketched her earlier and finished the picture when he heard of her increasing frailty, is probably correct. He certainly had an interest in Burns's contemporaries. But then I write fiction, and so am free to make things up!

Lou Taylor, Dress and Textiles,

Jean Armour is dressed in fashionable dress for an elderly woman of around the 1830-33 period I would guess, allowing a year or so of trickle down from Paris/London style. I don't believe she is in a widow's formal mourning bonnet with all that blue trimming- unless after her period of widow's mourning had ended- which could have been 2 years or later the death of her husband. Her dark dress, bonnet, hair style, the full gigot sleeves under her grey shawl, her ruff- all point to that kind of date- see attached images. 1831-2 sounds good to me.

Catherine Czerkawska,

Thanks, Lou - that's very interesting. I suspect he was kind to her in finishing it, having met her and possibly sketched her earlier, when she was in her prime. The later portrait, with her grand-daughter Sarah, is a much harsher depiction of a handsome, sad faced woman, but the costume is very similar.

Osmund Bullock,

Catherine, I think you need to address the possibility that it is not her at all. Portraits of famous people are a minefield: even when identified by an apparently contemporary inscription (which as far as I know this isn't), the default position is that they are always suspect, unless either (a) there is a reliable provenance linking them with the person; or (b) there is an original detail in the picture - an identifiable document, book or house, for example - that is peculiar to them; or, less certainly (c) they are exceptionally distinctive in appearance, and the image very closely resembles another undoubted and contemporary image of them. If you don't have any of these, and the sitter is moreover of quite the wrong age for the period, then you have a serious problem.

Yes, the picture of Jean with Sarah in 1828 - or the 1840 print after it, I haven't seen the original - shows her in broadly similar dress to this one... because it shows a woman from broadly the same period: http://www.burnsscotland.com/items/f/framed-engraving-of-mrs-robert-burns-(jean-armour)-and-one-of-her-grandchildren.aspx . There is another print of the 1870s, too, that derives from the same original, but excises Sarah because she was not the famous one: http://britton-images.com/shop/jean-armour-1767-1834-robert-burns-wife/

Both of these were published images, and thus widely known, and it would in those days (and even today) have been extremely common to add a hopeful identity to another portrait with any roughly similar elements to make it more interesting or valuable: you could fill a museum with supposed portraits of Shakespeare and Jane Austen. The unknown donor probably acquired it in good faith, and gave it to the gallery believing it was authentic.

I'm sorry to be so negative, but I strongly doubt that this is a portrait of Jean Armour Burns.

Jacob Simon,

This discussion, namely “When did Jean Armour have her portrait painted by John Moir?” is about a portrait acquired by South Ayrshire Council from an unknown source at an unknown date. So provenance is not a way forward. The discussion has attracted eight comments, made between 4 and 7 March 2016.

The portrait dates to 1832 according to the collection (is it signed and dated?). I concur with Lou (post of 7 March) that this date fits with the costume evidence. The idea that the portrait was begun when the sitter was much younger and finished later, as in Catherine’s post of 7 March, is not tenable without evidence since a professional artist would hardly depict the costume of the 1832 period with great care and give it an earlier head, in the absence of a still living sitter. Furthermore there is a mole to one side of the nose in Moir’s portrait, judging from the image. This is a feature that does not appear in other portraits of Jean Armour. More broadly, Osmund in his post of 7 March rehearses the evidence standards required to support identifications of this kind, evidence that is not forthcoming in this case. Rather the opposite: this portrait of 1832 cannot realistically depict Jean Armour in her late sixties.

On this basis, unless further evidence is submitted, and subject to any comment from Michelle as Group Leader for Scotland: Artists and Subjects, I propose that this discussion should be closed.

Michelle

Further to Jacob Simon's summary from 13 October, would you be kind enough to indicate if you have any thoughts in relation to this discussion and Jacob's recommendation that the discussion should now be closed. Thank you.

Lou Taylor, Dress and Textiles,

I would indeed recommend that this s discussion be closed down. The portrait remains gorgeous. Lou Taylor

Jacob Simon,

It is now upwards of five months since I recommended closing this discussion, subject to any comment from Michelle as Group Leader for Scotland: Artists and Subjects. If she is unavailable to comment, perhaps the discussion could be closed? I'm not sure of the etiquette in such situations. The collection also needs to be consulted.

I'd like to thank Michelle for replying by return that she is happy to close this and hopes to find time to look at the Scottish group discussions soon. I look forward to hearing from the Council.

Apologies for the delay, folks. I agree with Jacob - thank you for the summary and to everyone who contributed with comments. I recommend closing the discussion, unless the Council have anything else to add.

Thank you, Michelle. I've made a final attempt to involve the collection today, as the voicemail implies our contact is currently working. We will close this discussion after another week (by end of 15 March) unless significant new information comes to light this week.

Unfortunately, no one can gain access to the collection store at the moment to check the painting itself, however, their own database records that it is signed and dated 1832.

The accession number indicates that this painting has been in the SAC collection from a time before regular record keeping, so how or why it was thought to depict Jean Armour, or whether the date is correct or not might be hard to discover with any certainty now.

They are happy to change the title and if they find original documentation that throws any more light on the subject (which does turn up from time to time), they will let us know.