Andrew Wilton

JMW Turner His Art and Life

Poplar Books 1979

DRAFT NOTES - Wilton adds very little to the presentation material. He was working in pre-internet times in a situation where gathering evidence in respect of the 1793 exhibits was an almost impossible task.

• Wilton is the main reference in respect of showing that the Bristol Watercolour is not 'The rising squall, hot wells, from St. Vincent's rock, Bristol' [page 302, No. 18]
• His commentary about 'The rising squall, hot wells, from St. Vincent's rock, Bristol' is based on the mistaken assumption that the picture is a watercolour and relies on an unreliable poor quality photograph. He comments about the style of the watercolour which places it in 1791/1793 and suggests that Turner would have not exhibited it in 1793 but misses the evidence of the intervention of the Pantheon fire which displaced Turner's exhibiting intentions; that the Bristol Watercolour was intended for the 1792 exhibition but due to the fire (and Turner's desire to exhibit a topical work) exhibited 'The Pantheon, The Morning After The Fire' instead and left the Bristol Watercolour until 1793. [page 30]
• Wilton contributes two untenable references to the supposed provenance of 'View on the river Avon, near St. Vincent's rock, Bristol' which add to the confusion surrounding its identification. [page 302, No. 17]

Detailed Analysis of Works of Interest

Wilton page 315, No. 144
The entry for Remains of Waltham Abbey, Essex
Wilton quotes the size: 330mm x 432 (13" x 17") (h x w) from the 1887 Royal Academy Old Master Exhibition page 50 No. 13 and Armstrong page 283 but neither of those catalogues claim this to be the 1796 exhibit. C.F. Bell pages 31 & 32, No.30 definitely describes the exhibit but (probably incorrectly) says that it is an oil. The Armstrong/RA descriptions and the C.F. Bell description do not match. C.F.Bell does not quote a size; Armstrong/RA places the work in 1792. C.F. Bell quotes the Huskinson/Huskisson sale of 27th April 1864 (bought in)but Armstrong/RA do not.
Wilton does not mention this mismatch or how he comes to assume that the two clips of provenance relate to the same work.
This is important to us because the bought in items referred to above include 'View on the river Avon, near St. Vincent's rock, Bristol', which appears to be the Bristol Watercolour.

DRAFT notes below this point are just a rough run-through of points that need to be included

Wilton page 302, Nos. 17, 18 & 19
In contrast to the commentary on page 30 this set of entries contains all the somewhat confused elements that emerged from the two historic mistakes in respect of these pictures.

View on the river Avon, near St. Vincent's rock, Bristol Wilton 17

Wilton adds to the confusion by introducing two watercolours into the discussion which cannot possibly be the exhibit both on grounds of size.
1) River Avon Seen from cliffs below Clifton - Armstrong page 244 a small 8¾ "x 11".
2) 'Mouth of the Avon' Lot 7 omitted from Christies Ledger 14th Dec 1928, no catalogues, Wilton size: 6¾" x 9½"
Possible alternative name 'Mouth of the Avon near Bristol, seen from cliffs below Clifton

The two names, being similar, seem to refer to one picture but it must be two because Armstrong and Wilton quote different sizes. There is an additional evidential mismatch in the names: The mouth of the Avon is some 6 or 7 miles north of Clifton and to see it (the mouth) from Clifton one would need to be quite high on the cliff and north of St. Vincent's Rock. Turner actually drew a map of the area so he knew this. His exhibit was a view on the Avon - not 'of' the Avon and it was near St. Vincent's Rock, not 7 miles north.

The only part of Wilton's provenance that bears any resemblance to reality is the Sales Catalogue of 27th April 1864 which he did not note was the Huskinson (known as Huskisson) sale and just put it down as anonymous and does not state that it was bought in - Wilton's catalogue No. 144 does show the seller as Huskisson and does show 'bought in' but does not show the date. It is possible that Wilton was not aware that these were one and the same sale.

'The rising squall, hot wells, from St. Vincent's rock, Bristol' Wilton 18

Wilton noticed that the provenance was accurate only to the 9th July 1864 and Reynolds. Wilton did not know about the historic mistakes. He does say that the Bristol Watercolour cannot be the exhibit. How did he not notice that the Bristol Watercolour was/is, at least, 'a' 'View on the river Avon, near St. Vincent's rock, Bristol '? (if not the identifying it with the exhibit). Or perhaps he did... Wilton ends his entry with a reference to No 17 which could be a roundabout way of saying that the Bristol Watercolour is No.17 but if so why not note it in the No 17 text?

The onward provenance which does relate to the Bristol Watercolour is slightly different to that provided by the museum. Wilton mentions Finberg but without citation and I cannot find this. Finberg probably just copied C.F. Bell. Wilton conflates Hannah Stark Fussey (1893-1921)with the as yet unidentified 'Hull' and fails to mention Rev. John George Patton who sold the Bristol Watercolour to Bristol Museum and Art Gallery in 1925.

Wilton page 30 'The rising squall, hot wells, from St. Vincent's rock, Bristol'
Wilton's commentary on page 30 clearly shows that he has reason to doubt that the Bristol Watercolour is 'The rising squall, hot wells, from St. Vincent's rock, Bristol' but he does not seem to offer an alternative. (He is right of course!) However, his claim that the 'boat on the right' is seen in silhouette is extraordinary and clearly points to him having examined only a very poor photographic reproduction which is shown in his plate on page 28 (we have not scanned this). Thus the whole of his commentary is rendered unreliable being based on a poor photograph. What is even more extraordinary is how, in the light of his catalogue entries 17 and 18 on page 302, the page 30 commentary passed editorial scrutiny.

Wilton page 60 'Battle of the Nile, at 10 o'clock when the L'Orient blew up, from the station of the gun boats between the battery and castle of Aboukir'
Wilton has little to say except that the picture is lost.