Lot Essay
This is an interesting rediscovery. In her catalogue raisonné of Rossetti's paintings and drawings Mrs Surtees draws attention to a small version of The Beloved, one of the artist's best-known works, in the Tate Gallery. This version, the only one that Rossetti ever made of the picture, was painted in watercolour over a photograph, and is recorded in three letters from Rossetti to his patron James Anderson Rose, a solicitor. The references are as follows:
'26th June, 1865...As to the drawing, I must tell you one thing about it, it is painted in [?water-?body-] colour over a photograph from the picture. I do not mistrust it myself on that account, as I possess a similar thing by Seddon, now ten years old, which is as good as the first day....I would however sell it cheaper by #24 to you than to another private purchaser, and name #60 as its price. Will you let me know, as Gambart has just been and wants to have it'.
4th July 1865. Do you mind waiting for your little Beloved till the large one is in hand again, so that the parts not done yet in yours may be done like the rest from the large one? Yours will gain much thereby, and it will also be of service to me....'
'16th March, 1867. No doubt, if you put the watercoloured photograph of the Beloved in your sale, you are describing it in the catalogue as being painted on a photograph. In case this could chance to be omitted, would you mind my communicating with Christie to that effect?
You will see how important it is to me, as it is the only instance in which I ever painted on a photograph, and will remain the only one; and were the matter unexplained in this instance, misunderstanding might arise as to the nature of other works of mine'.
There can be little doubt that the present lot is the version referred to here, which was untraced when Mrs Surtees' catalogue appeared (1971). The picture is clearly painted over a photograph. The inscription from the Song of Soloman on the back is in Rossetti's hand, and the frame conforms exactly to a type that Rossetti was using at this date. An identical frame appears in Roman de la Rose (Tate Gallery; Surtees 126.R.1.), a watercolour dated 1864; for a reproduction which includes the frame, see Alastair Grieve, 'The Applied Art of D.G. Rossetti - I. His Picture-Frames', Burlington Magazine, 115i, January 1973, p. 21, fig. 10.
The picture was indeed included in Rose's sale at Christie's in March 1867, and, as Rossetti had feared, it was described as a watercolour and not as a painting on a photograph. Presumably in response to an objection from Rose or a direct 'communication' from Rossetti himself, the words 'painted on a photograph' have been added in ink in Christies' file copy.
It is interesting to note from Rossetti's letters to Rose that he was working on the Tate picture and our version concurrently. There are some significant differences between the two versions, and ours clearly records the Tate painting at an interim stage of development. Rossetti retouched the big picture extensively in 1873. Its appearance before that date is recorded in a photograph (F.M. Hueffer, Rossetti, 1902, frontispiece), and some variations found there also occur in our version. For instance, the attendant second from the left looks out at us with her right eye, not her left, as in the Tate picture, while the attendant on the far right lacks the necklace which she acquired in 1873. At the same time there are certain details which are unique to our version. The position of the central figure's left hand is different in both the Hueffer photograph and the Tate painting; the roses in the cup held by the negro page are yellow and pink in the Tate picture, red in our version, and apparently non-existent in the Hueffer photograph. The precise significance of these variations is difficult to determine; it is possible that our version has been retouched by a later hand in oil since the paint looks thicker and coarser than the watercolour to which the early records refer.
As Mrs Surtees observes, Rossetti was not strictly accurate in saying that he had never painted on a photograph before. According to G.C. Williamson (Country Life, 11 July 1936, pp. 35-6), he worked up a photograph of his wife in watercolour in 1861, shortly before she died. Set in a jewelled frame, this likeness was once in the Pierpont Morgan collection of miniatures and is now in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore.
We are grateful to Mrs Surtees for her help in preparing this entry.
'26th June, 1865...As to the drawing, I must tell you one thing about it, it is painted in [?water-?body-] colour over a photograph from the picture. I do not mistrust it myself on that account, as I possess a similar thing by Seddon, now ten years old, which is as good as the first day....I would however sell it cheaper by #24 to you than to another private purchaser, and name #60 as its price. Will you let me know, as Gambart has just been and wants to have it'.
4th July 1865. Do you mind waiting for your little Beloved till the large one is in hand again, so that the parts not done yet in yours may be done like the rest from the large one? Yours will gain much thereby, and it will also be of service to me....'
'16th March, 1867. No doubt, if you put the watercoloured photograph of the Beloved in your sale, you are describing it in the catalogue as being painted on a photograph. In case this could chance to be omitted, would you mind my communicating with Christie to that effect?
You will see how important it is to me, as it is the only instance in which I ever painted on a photograph, and will remain the only one; and were the matter unexplained in this instance, misunderstanding might arise as to the nature of other works of mine'.
There can be little doubt that the present lot is the version referred to here, which was untraced when Mrs Surtees' catalogue appeared (1971). The picture is clearly painted over a photograph. The inscription from the Song of Soloman on the back is in Rossetti's hand, and the frame conforms exactly to a type that Rossetti was using at this date. An identical frame appears in Roman de la Rose (Tate Gallery; Surtees 126.R.1.), a watercolour dated 1864; for a reproduction which includes the frame, see Alastair Grieve, 'The Applied Art of D.G. Rossetti - I. His Picture-Frames', Burlington Magazine, 115i, January 1973, p. 21, fig. 10.
The picture was indeed included in Rose's sale at Christie's in March 1867, and, as Rossetti had feared, it was described as a watercolour and not as a painting on a photograph. Presumably in response to an objection from Rose or a direct 'communication' from Rossetti himself, the words 'painted on a photograph' have been added in ink in Christies' file copy.
It is interesting to note from Rossetti's letters to Rose that he was working on the Tate picture and our version concurrently. There are some significant differences between the two versions, and ours clearly records the Tate painting at an interim stage of development. Rossetti retouched the big picture extensively in 1873. Its appearance before that date is recorded in a photograph (F.M. Hueffer, Rossetti, 1902, frontispiece), and some variations found there also occur in our version. For instance, the attendant second from the left looks out at us with her right eye, not her left, as in the Tate picture, while the attendant on the far right lacks the necklace which she acquired in 1873. At the same time there are certain details which are unique to our version. The position of the central figure's left hand is different in both the Hueffer photograph and the Tate painting; the roses in the cup held by the negro page are yellow and pink in the Tate picture, red in our version, and apparently non-existent in the Hueffer photograph. The precise significance of these variations is difficult to determine; it is possible that our version has been retouched by a later hand in oil since the paint looks thicker and coarser than the watercolour to which the early records refer.
As Mrs Surtees observes, Rossetti was not strictly accurate in saying that he had never painted on a photograph before. According to G.C. Williamson (Country Life, 11 July 1936, pp. 35-6), he worked up a photograph of his wife in watercolour in 1861, shortly before she died. Set in a jewelled frame, this likeness was once in the Pierpont Morgan collection of miniatures and is now in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore.
We are grateful to Mrs Surtees for her help in preparing this entry.