universal e-mail banner

Updated: 24th February 2023.

TITE, Sir William

b: 1798, Feb 7th

d: 1873, April 20th. (dod in the filename was 1874 from the executor sale)

Cross references: 0pres_08_61; 0pres_70_10

Sir William Tite's watercolour of 'St. Augustine's Gate, Canterbury'

Sir William Tite had possession of a watercolour of St. Augustine's Gate, Canterbury from at least 1871 to his executor sale in 1874. Having regard to all the information available at February 2023 the most likely origin of Tite's watercolour seems to be 'Christ Church Gate, Canterbury'; RA 1794 (388) ie: Tite et.al. misinterpreted the gate in his watercolour.

The dimensions of Tite's 'St. Augustine's Gate, Canterbury', as recorded independently in two exhibitions, describes a portrait orientation. This size and orientation is very close to 'Christ Church Gate, Canterbury'; RA 1794 (388) h. 20 1/8 x w. 15¾ inches as recorded by Wilton No. 53 page 306. It is possible that Tite misinterpreted the gate on his watercolour as Wilton's No. 53 suggests. Tite's work does not match any of the other reported sales or exhibitions of Turner's watercolours of this subject.

Armstrong's Record

Armstrong, page 245, (c 1902) describes Tite's watercolour from the details in the Burlington 1871, Royal Academy OM 1873 and Christie's sale catalogue of 4th July 1874. Reference is aloso made to the Royal Academy Exhibition of 1793 but without the exhibit number. The only evidence that Tite's watercolour was the 1793 exhibit is the entry in Burlington 1871. Armstrong relies on records of Tite's watercolour and therefore continues to misidentify the gate.

C. F. Bell's Record

C. F. Bell, No. 7 page 27, (c.1901) is intended to be a record of the actual 1793 Royal Academy Exhibit. C. F. Bell refers to the 1793 RA catalogue, the 1873 RA OM catalogue and Christie's sale catalogue of 4th July 1874 including the price of £158/11/-; thus far stating the provenance of Tite's watercolour and treating it as the 1793 exhibit. However, C. F. Bell then adds the 1891 Berthon sale to the provenance including the price of 19 guineas. The price difference strongly suggests that the Tite and Berthon watercolours are different works. C. F. Bell's entry for 'Gate of St. Augustine's Monastery, Canterbury', like many of his other entries, is unreliable.

Wilton's Record

Wilton's record (c.1979) of Tite's watercolour is rather muddled in as much as his main entry at No. 31 (on page 303) confuses Tite's watercolour with the International Exhibition catalogue of 1862 No. 992 an exhibit lent by William Leaf which also appeared in Leaf's 1875 executors sale ('Canterbury Gate' 43740 1875-05-06 Christies, lot 380 dimensions height 10+" x width 9") thus both overlapping Tite's loans and sale and being of a different size to Tite's watercolour and therefore being an entirely different work.

Wilton's second entry for Tite's watercolour is his No. 53 on page 306. This work is 'Christ Church Gate, Canterbury' where both Tite and Berthon are quoted as its provenance. However, the size and orientation evidence strongly supports Wilton's suggestion that the Tite provenance belongs to 'Christ Church Gate, Canterbury', No. 53.

First Owner of Tite's "Gate of St. Augustine's Monastery, Canterbury" or more likely 'Christ Church Gate, Canterbury'

There is only one prime record that suggests that Tite's watercolour was the 1793 exhibit. This is the Burlington 1871 which states, "probably the drawing exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1793". This weak evidential link is outranked by the size and orientation evidence.This needs to be further researched particularly against the claim that the Yale/Mellon version of 'Saint Augustine's Gate, Canterbury' B1975.4.1962, which can confirmed as a factual painting of Saint Augustine's Gate by comparison with modern photographs, was the 1793 exhibit. There are also claims that Tite's and Yale/Mellon's works are the same watercolour drawing but they are different sizes and different orientations (Tite: portrait, Yale/Mellon: landscape).

Tite was born in 1798 and clearly cannot have been the first owner of this watercolour (whether the 1793 exhibit or the 1794). Burlington 1871 above suggests a 1793 exhibit; therefore a 1792 work (so it must have appeared to be a work of this period to those who saw it and compiled the catalogue), the 1874 sale catalogue lists it as 'an early work'. Here is a list of people so far considered as possible earlier owners of Tite's work but more research is required:

Tite Collection - Purchases, Sales, Exhibitions

A selection of transactions by Tite are recorded here and may be revised from time to time. Tite was born in 1798 and could have started collecting in the 1830's.