LITERARY EVIDENCE ~O~
The discovery of JMW Turner's oil on canvas exhibited at the Royal Academy
in 1793 ~O~
LITERARY EVIDENCE
Christie Sale of 9th July 1864, Redford, CF Bell
& Hogarth
At the previous 'Huskisson' sale 'The 1793 Hotwells Oil' was bought in. On 9th July the picture seems to have emerged again this time with 'Hogarth'. The lot omits the claim to be the 1793 exhibit but Redford again includes it with oils and shows its title as:
At this stage of the literary chronology there is evidence of two attempted sales of 'The 1793 Hotwells Oil' in 1864. The seller was different in each sale, first 'Huskisson', then at this 9th July sale, 'Hogarth'. The evidence that this picture belonged to Nixon although discussed earlier (see 1793 July to August: Evidence that the Rev. Robert Nixon of Foots Cray took posession of 'The 1793 Hotwells Oil'. 07_20) did not emerge until September 1864. The two (apparently unsuccessful) sales in quick succession in 1864 by different sellers suggests an owner selling via agents but 'Huskisson' does not seem to appear as an agent in any other context. 'Hogarth' does but it is a more common name so there is some uncertainty there also. This evidence is not strong but it does suggest a (somewhat remote) owner attempting to sell a picture he knows to be the 1793 exhibit and using the services of a friend or aquaintance who fails; following the failure this owner hires the services of a professional dealer (Hogarth) who more cautiously omits the claim of the picture's exhibition history.
If so this indicates possible doubt as to the origin of the picture as Turner's 1793 exhibit. (Doubt in the eyes of the public but not the owner who must have been certain about it) .The picture was offered for sale again but but the outcome was not specified by Redford. An e-mail from Christies says that it was bought in.
[_NEXT_]
07_70
Footnote *[1]