Illustrating Mamma’s Diary, 1805 (part 2)

February 11, 2023 at 5:49 pm (history, jane austen, news, people, portraits and paintings, research) (, , , )

Since I was a bit long-winded yesterday, I now continue with the Smith portraits by John Downman (1749-1824), digitized at The British Museum. For Part 1, click link and read how & why I was looking through these images.

In 1805, Mamma Smith (Augusta Smith, senior) was a young bride (married 1798), with four children. Her fifth – Spencer, would be born in March of the next year. Few letters exist, but Mamma’s diary for that year DOES exist. I love her diaries; she always summed up the year (personal as well as “public” news) at the end of the volume – and sometimes one learned what she did NOT write in the journal area. For instance, at the summation of 1805 we learn that Mrs. Smith miscarried in March. When noted within the journal, she would always express such delicate thoughts in French. The “fausse couche” is found, noted on 17 March, a Sunday.

March is filled – since everyone was, as always, in London – with Card Parties and Concerts. Her parents are both alive and active. The children are in good health. Her very good friends, Mrs. Gosling, neighbor next door at No. 5 Portland Place, and Mrs. G’s sister Mrs. Drummond Smith (technically Mamma’s Aunt), are both in their graves – December 1803 and February 1804, respectively. These were daughters of Lady Cunliffe. Widower William Gosling (with his own clutch of little children) is found as a frequent visitor – or host of small dinners. Mr. Charles Smith (her husband) is the one she shows attending just such a dinner and a concert at the END of MARCH. She must therefore be convalescing. On the 29th a new milestone is mentioned: The Smiths marked being married seven years, “very happy ones”.

The evening before, Mr. Smith attended an Assembly hosted by his Aunt by marriage. The widowed Lady Burges went by SEVERAL names in her lifetime. Her birth-name was Margaret Burges (daughter and heiress of Ynyr Burges). When she married Augusta senior’s uncle John, she became yet another “Mrs. Smith” (has to be one of the hardest names to trace correctly, or even differentiate within such a vast family – with, it must be said, SMITHS on both sides!). The couple had married in 1771. In June 1790, by Royal License, they took the name Smith-Burges. In May 1793, with a baronetcy, they were now styled Sir John and Lady Smith-Burges. The family, however, seem to have often referred to her as “Lady Burges“, especially after Sir John’s death in 1803.

Margaret, born in 1744, was ten years younger than her husband. With little information to go on, there is too little to speculate whether she was looking for a second husband, or if one simply appeared. In July 1816 she married John 4th Earl Poulett.

Whew! so many names for the SAME woman!

Lord Poulett was a dozen years younger, but even he soon (1819) left her a widow. Poulett’s first countess left him his heirs; he and Margaret had no children – nor did she have any with John Smith.

In Downman’s albums, volumes entitled “First Sketches of Portraits of distinguished persons,” there is one portrait denoted “Study for a portrait of Mrs Smith, 1787“.

As usual, the “Mrs. Smith” would be tough to identify any given sitter. There were too many, related and unrelated to each other.

But it is Margaret Smith-Burges’ last appellation – by which she went for nearly another twenty years (she died in 1838) – that catches my eye and and fires my imagination.

I swear, there are times that the handwritten name, in Smith-related letters or diaries, often LOOKS “Paulet”. Trouble is, this was a familial name – of Lord Bolton’s family, and often spelled POWLETT. For instance, Thomas Orde-Powlett, 1st Baron Bolton – mixed up with the Dukes of Bolton (and even Jane Austen’s Hampshire family), but I leave you to “google” the family. I’ve not looked very hard, but I do not believe any “Mrs. Smith” held the title “Lady Paulet”.

The “Lady Paulet”, in association with the name Mrs. Smith — not, as the Curator Notes seem to posit, a “re-attribution,” but a true secondary attribution, to my eyes, leads me to believe I’ve the answer to THIS sitter’s identify.

The pencil, although it mistakes “a” for “o” and omits one “t,” misspells POULETT, giving, after 1816, Mrs. Smith’s last appellation. I believe BM’s sitter to be Mrs John Smith, AKA Margaret Smith-Burges.

Click the photo to be taken to the full portrait at The British Museum. But compare the face and profile to this profile (c1786):

And this face – an 1805 etching:

Both can be found on the Two Teens in the Time of Austen’s page, PORTRAITS & PEDIGREES.

I don’t think I’m wrong.

Do you ????

(I’d welcome thoughts on both sides of the argument.)

The artist of the etching – at the National Portrait Gallery, London – is Robert Cooper; the work’s artist is “unknown”. Given that Downman’s sketch is profile, it’s unlikely he would have produced a full-face official portrait. So it’s doubtful he produced the original image that the etcher etched. But, I will keep my eyes open.

She can also be seen, at NPG, in a lengthy (literally, it’s over 84-inches long) picture, “The installation-supper as given at the Pantheon, by the Knights of the Bath on the 26th of May 1788.” It’s difficult to identify what she LOOKS like (small image), but the NPG website makes it possible to pop up a little box around her — she appears towards the right end, back to the audience, with a plump bum (blame it on the clothes), dressed in pink with white. The thin stick of a man beside her is ID’ed as Earl Poulett. Which, the more I think about it, probably means the Countess depicted is his first rather than his second wife…. Sophia Pocock married John Poulett in 1782; she died in 1811. Hmmm…., should drop a note to NPG’s website, marking the mis-attribution. The cartoon is by James Gillray.

Of course, in 1788, Margaret’s name was merely “Mrs. Smith,” and not the Countess Poulett.

Goodness! I’ve chatted on – and still have a lengthy discourse to share on my other “Mrs. Smith” *find*. I will make a Part 3…

* * *

Part 1 of the series Illustrating Mamma’s Diary, 1805

Part 3 of the series Illustrating Mamma’s Diary 1805

 

Permalink Leave a Comment

Illustrating Mamma’s Diary, 1805

February 10, 2023 at 10:21 am (history, news, people, portraits and paintings, research) (, , , , )

After posting news of the portrait of Percy Currie (née Gore) [see “New Portrait: Percy Gore (1794)“], Douglas contacted me and we’ve had a wonderful verbal exchange over portraits of Percy the Mother (Mrs. Currie, in Smith family letters and diaries) and Percy the Daughter, Percy-Gore Currie, (later, the wife of Bishop Horatio Powys).

Percy Gore Currie (by Russell 1794)

Yesterday, Douglas sent me back to the Collections website at the British Museum. He had found a portrait image of Percy’s husband William Currie, 1796 (died, 1829).

See the other two Curries in the same album:

The artist is John Downman – whose distinctive style is immediately recognized in these swiftly-composed and lightly-colored portraits. There are THREE CURRIES in these albums. But I must say, originally I presumed the Curries had owned an album of drawings by Downman of their family members., which now was to be found in the collections of the British Museum. Indeed, no! The albums (multiple volumes) were Downman’s OWN ALBUMS of preliminary sketches of (as he evidently named them) “First Sketches of Portraits of distinguished persons.” THAT fact changed the way I thought about the works. AND it made me look more closely at the information the British Museum included with each of them.

A few notes about the Downman drawings and the Curator Comments.

William and Percy married in 1794. So her portrait’s identification must have been put in retrospectively (there are further lines, in different hands, but I mean the original pen identification) – it identifies her as “their Sister-in-law” and calls her Mrs. Currie.

(What can “THEIR” mean when one portrait is Percy’s sister-in-law but the other is Percy’s husband? Were there – are there – more family portraits??)

Also, the Curator Notes assume “Miss Currie” to be Elizabeth (born 1774). The Notes are correct in saying there were FIVE Currie daughters, but the title MISS Currie would only have gone to the ELDEST (unmarried) daughter. That honor belongs to Magdalen Currie, who never married. She appears in Emma Smith’s diaries and in family letters as “Miss Currie,” whom the Smiths of Suttons visited often. Brother William (the eldest son) was born in 1756; their parents Magdalen Lefevre and William Currie [died 1781] had married in 1753. Magdalen the daughter, their oldest child, was born September 1754. She retained throughout her life the title of “Miss Currie”.

[Note: alternate spelling: Madaleine, though was it used by the Lefevre or Currie family?]

Further  thoughts dawned as I looked more closely at the Trio of Portraits: Percy’s drawing is dated EARLIEST. 1791 versus 1796 for the Currie siblings. Undoubtedly, she (or her family) found Downman first, and others followed her lead. It is always illustrative, when one member (or, in this case, potential member) of a family has their portrait painted, taken, or photographed: WHAT OTHER family then did the same?? is always my first thought. Silvy, the photographer, is one whose studio books illustrate several members of the greater Smith & Gosling family. Edouart, the silhouettist, produced a lengthy list of silhouettes – but his own studio albums for the period were lost. Where HAVE the originals gone? You can peruse the list yourself by looking at “Where are these items?

So who else might have used the services of John Downman??

Once I realized that, I had incentive to seek more of his sitters. No Goslings (boo!), and no Smiths of Suttons family (boo, too!), but SMITH did pull up a couple of interesting images!

This preamble has grown to such a length that I will make a Part 2 of this post. In the meantime, I will leave you with Williamson’s book on JOHN DOWNMAN – which sets out his sitters, including the three Curries (page 135).

* * *

Part 2 of the series Illustrating Mamma’s Diary, 1805

Part 3 of the series Illustrating Mamma’s Diary, 1805

Permalink Leave a Comment

I’m Curious: The Connoisseur

April 24, 2016 at 8:36 pm (books, entertainment, history, portraits and paintings) (, , , , , )

I’m curious to find out if any Two Teens readers know of ANY publication comparable to an old journal called The Connoisseur. This magazine ceased publication in 1992, but throughout much of the twentieth century it catered to an audience interested in art, portraiture, heraldry, genealogy, antiques, furniture, lace, books – and Notes & Queries from readers!

I have a copy (online) from 1915. It is absolutely FASCINATING!

  • February 1915 features “Some Unpublished Lawrence Portraits”
  • two unidentified portraits in a private collection, wanting to be ID’ed
  • “Notes on Wincanton Delft”
  • answers to earlier unidentified paintings
  • and “notes” on Rowlandson drawings

connoisseur

I’d be interested to learn if ANYTHING even remotely similar is out there, in print or online. It must indeed have offered a unique “given-and-take” for collectors, as well as those (like me) who just have an interest — or a burning desire to uncover things currently shrouded in mystery. Like more letters, diaries, or portraits of my dear Smiths & Goslings!

Between it’s articles and its queries, The Connoisseur: a magazine for Collectors must indeed have been a “crowd-sourced” pleasure to see on the newsstand or in your mailbox.

Here’s what I’ve quickly found, and hope you derive as much pleasure perusing their pages as I have:

* **

Things of beauty“: a 2014 blogger discusses the lure of the Connoisseur.

Permalink Leave a Comment