Turner.
by William Cosmo Monkhouse.
PREFACE.
The late Mr. Thornbury lost such an opportunity of writing a worthy biography of Turner as will never occur again. How he dealt with the valuable materials which he collected is well known to all who have had to test the accuracy of his statements; and unfortunately many of the channels from which he derived information have since been closed by death. Mr. Ruskin, who might have helped so much, has contributed little to the life of the artist but some brilliant pa.s.sages of pathetic rhetoric. Overgrown by his luxuriant eloquence, and buried beneath the _debris_ of Thornbury, the ruins of Turner"s Life lay hidden till last year.
Mr. Hamerton"s "Life of Turner" has done much to remove a very serious blot from English literature. Very careful, but very frank, it presents a clear and consistent view of the great painter and his art, and is, moreover, penetrated with that intellectual insight and refined thought which illuminate all its author"s work.
He has, however, left much to be done, and this book will, I hope, help a little in clearing away long-standing errors, and reducing the known facts about Turner to something like order. To these facts I have been able to add a few hitherto unpublished; and it is a pleasant duty to return my thanks to the many kind friends and strangers for the pains which they have taken to supply me with information. To Mr. F. E.
Trimmer, of Heston, the son of Turner"s old friend and executor; to Mr.
John L. Roget; to Mr. Mayall, and to Mr. J. Beavington Atkinson, my thanks are especially due.
In so small a book upon so large a subject, I have often had much difficulty in deciding what to select and what to reject, and have always preferred those events and stories which seem to me to throw most light upon Turner"s character. On purely technical matters I have touched only when I thought it absolutely necessary. This part of the subject has been already so well and fully treated by Mr. Ruskin in numerous works, too well known to need mention; by Mr. Hamerton in his "Life of Turner," and "Etching and Etchers;" by Messrs. Redgrave in their "Century of English Painters," and by Mr. S. Redgrave in his introduction to the collection of water-colours at South Kensington, that I need only refer to these works such few among my readers as are not already acquainted with them. I would also refer them for similar reasons to Mr. Rawlinson"s recent work on the "Liber Studiorum."
I should have liked to add to this volume accurate lists of Turner"s works and the engravings from them, with information of their possessors, and the extraordinary fluctuation in the prices which they have realized, but this would have entailed great labour and have swelled unduly the bulk of this volume, which is already greater than that of its fellows. Fortunately this information is likely to be soon supplied by Mr. Algernon Graves, whose accurate catalogue of Landseer"s works is sufficient guarantee of the manner in which he will perform this more difficult task.
The edition of Thornbury"s "Life of Turner" referred to throughout these pages, is that of 1877.
W. COSMO MONKHOUSE.
[Ill.u.s.tration: decorative bar]
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
The task of writing a satisfactory life of Turner is one of more than usual difficulty. He hid himself, partly intentionally, partly because he could not express himself except by means of his brush. His secretiveness was so consistent, and commenced so early, that it seems to have been an instinct, or what used to be called by that name. Akin to the most divinely gifted poets by his supreme pictorial imagination, he also seems on the other side to have been related to beings whose reasoning faculty is less than human. When we look at such pictures as _Crossing the Brook_, _The Fighting Temeraire_, and _Ulysses and Polyphemus_, we feel that we are in the presence of a mind as sensitive as Keats"s, as tender as Goldsmith"s, and as penetrative as Sh.e.l.ley"s; when we read of the dirty discomfort of his home and of the difficulty with which his patrons, and even his relations, obtained access to his presence--how even his most intimate friends were not admitted to his confidence--we can only think of a hedgehog, whose offensive powers being limited, is warned by nature to live in a hole and roll itself up into a ball of spikes at the approach of strangers.
We are used to having our idols broken; but we still fashion them with a persistency which seems to argue it a necessity of our nature, that we should think of the life and character of gifted men as being the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace we perceive in their works. It is this habit which makes any attempt to write a life of Turner pre-eminently unsatisfactory, for his refined sense of the most ethereal of natural phenomena is not relieved by any refinement in his manners, his supreme feeling for the splendour of the sun is unmatched by any light or brilliance in his social life; his extreme sensibility, a sensibility not only artistic but human, to all the emotional influences of nature, stands for ever as a contrast to his self-absorbed, suspicious individuality. There is of course no reason why a landscape painter should be refined in manner or choice in his habits. There is no necessary connection between the subjects of such an artist and himself, except his hand and eye. He lives a life of visions that may come and go without affecting his life or even his thought, as we generally use that word. The most tremendous phenomena of nature may be seen and studied, and reproduced with such power as to strike terror into those who see the picture, and yet leave the artist unaltered in demeanour and taste. Even those men of genius who, instead of employing their imagination upon nature"s inanimate works, devote themselves to the study of man himself, socially and morally, do not by any means show that relation between themselves and their finest work that we appear naturally to expect.
But all this, though it may explain much, still leaves unsatisfactory the task of writing the life of a man of whom such pa.s.sages as the following could be sincerely written:--
"Glorious in conception--unfathomable in knowledge--solitary in power--with the elements waiting upon his will, and the night and morning obedient to his call, sent as a prophet of G.o.d to reveal to men the mysteries of the universe, standing, like the great angel of the Apocalypse, clothed with a cloud, and with a rainbow upon his head, and with the sun and stars given into his hand."--_Modern Painters_ (1843), p. 92.
"Towards the end of his career he would often, I am a.s.sured on the best authority, paint hard all the week till Sat.u.r.day night; and he would then put by his work, slip a five-pound note into his pocket, b.u.t.ton it securely up there, and set off to some low sailor"s house in Wapping or Rotherhithe, to wallow till Monday morning summoned him to mope through another week."--THORNBURY"S _Life of Turner_ (1877), pp. 313, 314.
The contrast is too great to make the picture pleasant, the facts are too few to make it perfect; to make it one or the other, it would be necessary to do as Turner did, and rightly did, with his perfect drawings--suppress facts that jarred with his scheme of form and colour, and insert figures or mountains or clouds that were necessary to complete it; but a biography is nothing if not real--it belongs to the other side of art. The task would be rendered lighter, if not more agreeable, if we were frankly to accept the principle of a dual nature, and cutting up our subject into halves, treat Turner the artist and Turner the man as two separate beings; and there would, at first sight, seem to be no more convincing proof of this duality than is afforded by Turner. He had an exquisitely sensitive apprehension of all physical phenomena, and was able to h.o.a.rd away his impressions by the thousand in that wonderful brain-store of his, until they were wanted for pictures.
He stored them with his eye, he reproduced them with his hand and memory. These three were all of the finest, and seemed to act without that process which is necessary to most of us before we can make use of our impressions, viz., the translation of them into words. This process is as necessary for the nourishment of most minds as digestion for the nourishment of the body, but to him it appears to have been almost entirely denied. He had grasp enough of his impressions without it, to enable him to a.n.a.lyze them and compose them pictorially; but he could not give any account of them or of his method of composition, and they had no sensible effect on his conversation.
He thus lived in two worlds--one the pictorial sight-world, in which he was a profound scholar and a poet, the other the articulate, moral, social word-world in which he was a dunce and underbred. In the one he was great and happy, in the other he was small and miserable; for what philosophy he had was fatalist. The riddle of life was too hard for his uncultivated intellect and starved heart to contemplate with any hope; he was only at rest in his dreamland. When he came down into this world of ours from his own clouds, he brought some of his glory with him, but without any cheerful effect; for it came but as a foil to ruined castles, the vice of mortals and the decay of nations.
Yet, while at a first view this distinction between Turner as a man and Turner as an artist seems complete, further study shows that the man had a great and often a fatal influence on the artist, and that this was not without reaction both serious and deep, and so we find that his art and himself are no more to be divided in any human view of him than were his body and his soul when he was yet alive. For these reasons we shall keep as close together as possible the histories of his life and his art, a task always difficult and sometimes impossible on account of the scantiness of trustworthy data for the one and the almost infinite material for the other.
[Ill.u.s.tration: decoration]
[Ill.u.s.tration: decorative bar]
CHAPTER II.
EARLY DAYS.
1775 TO 1789.
The appearance of Turner"s genius in this world is not to be accounted for by any known facts. Given his father and his mother, his grandfather and grandmother, on the father"s side, which is all we know of his ancestry, given the date of his birth, even though that was the 23rd April (St. George"s day, as has been so childishly insisted on), 1775, there seems to be positively no reason why William Turner, barber, of 26, Maiden Lane, opposite the Cider Cellar, in the parish of St. Paul"s, Covent Garden, and Mary Turner, _nee_ Marshall, his wife, should have produced an artist, still less, one of the greatest artists that the world has yet seen. There is only one fact, and that a very sad one, which might be held to have some connection with his genius. "Great wits are sure to madness near allied," sang Dryden,[1] and poor Mrs. Turner became insane "towards the end of her days." This, however, will in no way account for the special quality of Turner"s genius. He arose like many other great men in those days to help in opening the eyes of England to the beauties of nature, one of the large and ill.u.s.trious constellation of men of genius that lit the end of the last and the beginning of the present century, and with that truth we must be content.
The earliest fact that we have on record which had any influence on Turner is that his paternal grandfather and grandmother spent all their lives at South Molton in Devonshire. Although he is not known to have visited Devonshire till he was thirty-seven years of age;[2] he appears to have been proud of his connection with the county, and to have a.s.serted that he was a Devonshire man. This is, as far as we know, the solitary effect of Turner"s ancestry upon him. Of his father and mother the influence was necessarily great. From his father he undoubtedly obtained his extraordinary habits of economy, that spirit of a petty tradesman, which was one of his most unlovely characteristics, and, be it added, his honesty and industry also. Of his father we have several descriptions by persons who knew him; of his mother, one only, and that, unfortunately, not so authentic. We will give the lady the first place, and it must be remembered that this unfavourable picture is drawn by Mr.
Thornbury from information derived from the Rev. Henry Syer Trimmer, the son of Turner"s old friend and executor, the Rev. Henry Scott Trimmer, of Heston, who obtained it from Hannah Danby, Turner"s housekeeper in Queen Anne Street, who got it from Turner"s father.
"In an unfinished portrait of her by her son, which was one of his first attempts, my informant perceived no mark of promise; and he extended the same remark to Turner"s first essays at landscape.
The portrait was not wanting in force or decision of touch, but the drawing was defective. There was a strong likeness to Turner about the nose and eyes; her eyes being represented as blue, of a lighter hue than her son"s; her nose aquiline, and the nether lip having a slight fall. Her hair was well frizzed--for which she might have been indebted to her husband"s professional skill--and it was surmounted by a cap with large flappers. Her posture therein (_sic_) was erect, and her aspect masculine, not to say fierce; and this impression of her character was confirmed by report, which proclaimed her to have been a person of ungovernable temper, and to have led her husband a sad life. Like her son, her stature was below the average."
This as the result of a painted portrait by her son, and verbal description by her husband, is not too flattering, and it is all we know of the character and appearance of poor Mary Turner. Of her belongings we know still less. She is said to have been sister to Mr. Marshall, a butcher, of Brentford, and first cousin to the grandmother of Dr. Shaw, author of "Gallops in the Antipodes," and to have been related to the Marshalls, formerly of Shelford Manor House, near Nottingham.[3] We are able to add to this scanty information that she was the younger sister of Mrs. Harpur, the wife of the curate of Islington, who was grandfather of Mr. Henry Harpur, one of Turner"s executors. He (the grandfather) fell in love with his future wife when at Oxford, and their marriage brought her sister to London. We are also informed that the hard-featured woman crooning over the smoke, in an early drawing by Turner in the National Gallery (_An Interior_, No. 15), is Turner"s mother, and the kitchen in which she is sitting, the kitchen in Maiden Lane. We have also ascertained that one Mary Turner, from St. Paul"s, Covent Garden, was admitted into Bethlehem Hospital on Dec. 27th, 1800, one of whose sponsors for removal was "Richard Twenlow, Peruke Maker."
This unfortunate lady, whether Turner"s mother or not, was discharged uncured in the following year. Altogether what we know about Turner"s mother does not inspire curiosity, and we fear that she was never destined to figure in an edition of "The Mothers of Great Men." The "sad life" which she is said to have led her husband could scarcely have been sadder than her own.
Of his father we have fuller information.
"Mr. Trimmer"s description of the painter"s parent, the result of close knowledge of him, is that he was about the height of his son, spare and muscular, with a head below the average standards"
(whatever that may mean) "small blue eyes, parrot nose, projecting chin, and a fresh complexion indicative of health, which he apparently enjoyed to the full. He was a chatty old fellow, and talked fast, and his words acquired a peculiar transatlantic tw.a.n.g from his nasal enunciation. His cheerfulness was greater than that of his son, and a smile was always on his countenance."
This description is of him when an old man, but he must have been not very different from this when about one year and eighteen months after his marriage, which took place on August 29th, 1773, the little William was born. He was not a man likely to alter much in habit or appearance.
He was always stingy, if we may judge by the story of his following a customer down Maiden Lane to recover a halfpenny which he omitted to charge for soap, and from his son"s statement that his "Dad" never praised him for anything but saving a halfpenny. As barbers are proverbially talkative, and as persons do not generally develop cheerfulness in later life, we may consider Mr. Trimmer"s portrait of the old man to be essentially correct of him when young, especially as we find that Turner the younger was always "old looking," a peculiarity which is generally hereditary.
The house (now pulled down) in which Turner was born, and in which, for at least some time after, father, mother, and son resided together, is thus described by Mr. Ruskin: "Near the south-west corner of Covent Garden, a square brick pit or well is formed by a close-set block of houses, to the back windows of which it admits a few rays of light.
Access to the bottom of it is obtained out of Maiden Lane, through a low archway and an iron gate; and if you stand long enough under the archway to accustom your eyes to the darkness, you may see, on the left hand, a narrow door, which formerly gave access to a respectable barber"s shop, of which the front window, looking into Maiden Lane, is still extant."
Maiden Lane is not a very brilliant thoroughfare, and was still narrower and darker at this time, but still this picture, though doubtless accurate, seems to make it still darker, and in the engraving of the house in Thornbury"s life of Turner, even the front window that looked into Maiden Lane is rendered ominously black by the shadow of a watchman thrown up by his low-held lantern. To us it seems that there is plenty of dark in Turner"s life without thus unduly heightening the gloom of his first dwelling-place. A barber cannot do his work without light, and we have no doubt that whatever sorrow fell upon Turner in his life was in no way deepened by his having to pa.s.s through a low archway and an iron gate in order to get to his father"s shop.
[Ill.u.s.tration: HOUSE IN MAIDEN LANE IN WHICH TURNER WAS BORN.]
The house in Maiden Lane would have been a cheerful enough and a wholesome enough nest for little William[4] if it had contained a happy family presided over by a sweetly smiling mother. This want is the real dark porch and iron gateway of his life, the want which could never be supplied. In that wonderful memory of his, so faithful, by all accounts, to all places where he had once been happy, there was no chamber stored with sweet pictures of the home of his youth; no exhaustless reservoir of tender, healthy sentiment, such as most of us have, however poor. Here is a note of pathos on which we might dwell long and strongly without fear of dispute or charge of false sentiment.
Children, indeed, do not miss what they have not: present sorrows did not probably affect his appet.i.te, future forebodings did not dim his hopes; but then, and for ever afterwards, he was terribly handicapped in the struggle for peace and happiness on earth, in his desire after right thinking and right doing, in his aims at self-development, in his chance of wholesome fellowship with his kind, in his capacity for understanding others and making himself understood, for all these things are more difficult of attainment to one who never has known by personal experience the charm of what we mean by "home."
This want in his life runs through his art, full as it is of feeling for his fellow-creatures, their daily labour, their merry-makings, their fateful lives and deaths; there is at least one note missing in his gamut of human circ.u.mstance--that of domesticity. He shows us men at work in the fields, on the seas, in the mines, in the battle, bargaining in the market, and carousing at the fair, but never at home. This is one of the princ.i.p.al reasons why his art has never been truly popular in home-loving domestic England.
It is not good for man, still less for a boy, to be alone, and we do not think we can be wrong in thinking that he was a solitary boy. How soon he became so we do not know. We may hope that in his earliest years at least he was tenderly cared for by his mother, and petted by his father.
There is no reason why we may not draw a bright picture of his childhood, and fancy him walking on Sundays with his father and mother in the Mall of St. James"s Park, wearing a short flat-crowned hat with a broad brim over his curly brown hair, with snowy ruffles round his neck and wrists, and a gay sash tied round his waist, concealing the junction between his jacket-waistcoat and his pantaloons; but this bright period cannot have lasted long. Soon he must have been driven upon himself for his amus.e.m.e.nt, and fortunate it was for him that nature provided him with one wholesome and endless.
It is known that one artist, Stothard, was a customer of his father, and it is probable that as there was an academy in St. Martin"s Lane, and the Society of Artists at the Lyceum, and many artists resided about Covent Garden, the little boy"s emulation may have been excited by hearing of them, and perhaps chatting with them and seeing their sketches.