IS IT BURNS?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17246, 12 January 1924, Page 23

IS IT BURNS?

NEW RAEBURN PORTRAIT CONTROVERSY. NOT LIKE ACCEPTED PORTRAITS. The authenticity of a new portrait of the poec Burns has created a great, deal of interest in Scotland lately. The portrait, which is in tin? possession of Mr Edward Burlington Nash, is claimed to be a genuine Raeburn, painted from life. Interest in the controversy arises from the fact that the portrait is unlike the accepted portraits of Burns. WRONG IMPRESSIONS OF THE POET. “It is a great misfortune—l might say calamity,” Mr Nash is quoted as saying, in the “ Weekly Scotsman,"

“ that the world’s sole conception of what the poet Burns was like—-his pictorial presentment—for the space of a eentury was based on the littie bust portraits and the full-length portrait (painted all but the face from a pencil sketch for Lockhart’s ‘‘Life”) by Alexander Nasmyth. The Peter Taylor portrait-, although absolutely as veritable as the Nasmyth, coarse and heavy it may be. was but little known and never appreciated, though attested by tho poet’s family and several intimate friends.” As a final proof of the authenticity of the picture as a Burns portrait, Mr Nash states that in JBB9 (the year in which he canto into possession of the portrait), a man aged lOfi, then living in Nairn, had personally known Burns, a fact certified by a minister. Tie was in the full possessions of all his senses, and when shown the large photograph and asked, “Who is this. I>avid ?” liis faoe lighted up, and he exclaimed. “Burns, every inch; I mind him weel.” IMPORTANT DOCUMENT DESTROYED. Iri his arguments in support of his claim that the picture he possesses is the true portrait of Burns painted from l life. Mr Nash says j The smaller portrait is much more I in accordance with Nasmyth than the j larger, being evidently painted within l a short period of each other. It has i never been questioned that this is j the work of Raeburn, by anyone of ! authority upon Raeburn’s technique. Tt j bears unmistakably the impress of tho artist’s early manner. The Cadell and j Davies evidence is most convincing in j that this portrait was referred to by i them as an original portrait of Robert ! Bums, by Sir Henry Raeburn. R.A. ! In regard to the letter from Mr 1 Cunningham to Messrs Cade 11 and i Davies, containing the reference. to j another Raeburn portrait of Burns, Mr j Nash states that for the purpose of ! the Glasgow Bums exhibition be had j obtained the loan from America of the I hound volume of Oadell correspondence. He tells the. story of the disappearance

or tour iettters irom me volume whilst it was in the exhiibtion, and the circumstances in which he learnt from a certain individual that he had destroyed two of them, and adds:— “ In the. absence of Roe burn's memoranda, diaries of sitters, etc. (which, if ever now recovered will reveal the name of the poet, most assuredly among bis sitters), the Cunningham letters bound ill tho volume of Cadell correspondence were the- most authentic evidence that has yet come to light that Raeburn, painted Burns from his living presence. T have reverted to the importance of this evidence in quoting my notes te speeding it. The words used by Cunningham, in bis letter to Messrs Cadell and Davies, •Will ask Mr Raeburn to paint another.’ T was advised to make a declaration of what transpired (at the Glasgow exhibition) with as complete as possible* for the purpose of preserving the evidence.” “ Mr Kirkpatrick (chairman of th 3 Executive Committee of the Kxhibi Nash was addressing at the exhibition) said afterwards in conversation that the man referred to above had tried to prejudice him against the portraits,

that to an extent he had relied on his opiuiem, hut being often in the exhibition and getting familiar with the features of the Raeburns, he had studied again for comparison the various descriptions of the poet which completely changed his views respecting them. Otherwise he would not have takeu the chair at my address.’ A SUGGESTIVE RESEMBLANCE. In support of his contention that the picture was known prior to the death of Raeburn, Mr Nasu. says:— “Mr Jackson, the agent acting for the owner of the Burris relics 1 purchased in 1889, had in liis possession a very beautiful water-colour drawing, being a faithful transcript of the large Raeburn portrait of Burns. Several lines of the inscription on the reverse of the drawing had been obliterated by friction. The drawing is nroof that tho picture was known in 1811. The in scription would probably have revealed the locale of the picture when seen and sketched. The remaining inscription is : Burns the Poet. "William Allan. 1811. “ It will be noted that Sir William Allan, P.R.S.A., in designing his picture of Burns composing tho ‘ Cottar’s Saturday Night,’ has copied the exact attitude of the Raeburn portrait, the left arm hanging down. The legs crossed, and the Earns chair (Raeburn’s chair). . . . This water-colour drawing proves that Sir "William saw tho portrait somewhere, knew it represented Burns, and adopted the attitude. “Jackson was requiring an immense sum for this drawing—much more than T would pay for it, much as I wanted it. "Where and when his effects were disposed of I never knew.” EXPERTS’ VIEWS. At the time of the Glasgow Burn? Exhibitions Mr William Sharp, an authority on Scottish portraiture, wrote: —“There can be no doubt that this is not only a genuine Raeburn but also n fine one, though it has suffered in more ways than one since it left the

( artist’s’ studio, and there, is ample circumstantial and great inherent evidence of its authenticity, both as a ‘ Raeburn * and. a * Burns.’ . . . Mr Nash is confident that the larger of the two shown here was painted in Edinburgh in 1789 or 1700, when Raeburn had been painting oil portraits for about three years, and that the smaller was painted in the spring of 1787. im mediately after his return from Rome.” Iri a discourse upon Some Portraits of Shakespeare and of Burns before the Royal Institution of Groat Britain on February ‘JO. 1914, Professor Sir Arthur Keith, M L).. LL.D.. F.R.S , E.R.C.S., said in reference to the alleged Raeburn portrait of Burns brought by Mr Nash to Edinburgh in 1889; “That the portrait is that o< Burns I have no doubt. The features of the cranial cast aro manifest, in the portrait. Those who have .seen tho Raeburn portrait have seen Burns."’ When tho picture was shown at the. meeting of the Literary and Philosophical Society in Edinburgh it. was remarked by Charles Martin Hardie : “If it is not by Raeburn, who else could havo painted it; and if it is not Burns, who is it?” CAST OF THE POET’S SKULL. Mr Nash gives the following information in support of Ins observation on the size or Burns's head:-- •• On the night preceding the interment of the poet s wiciow ('Bonnie Jean), March bd, 1834, a selected party of Durtries gentlemen, alter receiving due authority from the family, descended into the vault and obtained a plaster cast of the poet's skull. Mr James (Bailie) Eraser, assisted by Dr Black - lock, took the matrix. A report upon tho condition of tho skull was drawn up by Dr Blaeklock and published, which states that it was in a very perfect condition of preservation. Tho cast includes the whole of the part which contains tho brain, but stops short in front at, the lower rims of the orbits. This cranial cast is now the most valuable evidence we possess in arriving at a just appreciation of the the upper and most, consequential* part of the head is concerned. “ Wo must apply the certain tetts of anatomical science to determine bv examination how far the portraits differ or agree with the said cranial cast, in which are manifest certain abnormal traits. The eyebrow ridges I arc very strongly marked, and elevated to a considerable degree above the orbits. with which the large Raeburn portrait is in complete correspondence, as with other points of analogy, which are manifest- in both cast and portrait - the pronounced frontal sinus, for instance. None of these traits is observable in tho Nasmvtli portrayals.” Mr Nash recalls that he discussed with scientists and other eminent gentlemen the analogy of cast and features. “ The cranial east T then possessed was one of the originals taken from the matrix bv Air Fraser and Dr Blaeklock in Dumfries. Tt is the only old cast known to me. and formerly belonged to Carlyle and was given me by his doctor. T gave it to Professor Sir Arthur Keith for the Museum, Royal College of Surgeons, London, for preservation in the interests of science. Many of the above medical men. as well as other scientists I met, never knew that such valuable evidence was in existence of the biggest head and the biggest brain known in Scotland.” PROOFS IN THE PICTURE. Analysing the features of the picture, in the light, of the evidence of the cranial cast and of references in correspondence to the appearance of the poet, Mr Nash adduces the following arguments in support of the picture being that of Burns : The person represented conveys the appearance of a very dark and swarthy individual in agreement with all descriptions of the poet. “Black avised, parson-looking."’ says -James Hogg in a reference. The dark wavy hair is spread upon the forehead (see Josiah Walker’s description). The ribbon bow of the tied hair or queue is discernible at the back of the peck, which is short- and tiliick-set. (Seo Arthur Keith’s discourse. Royal Institution, “ Shakespeare . and Burns,” February 20, 1914.) The stoop in the shoulders is very apparent. They are broad and square, ’lire eyes are very beautiful- They are deep-set—(Gilbert Burns’s letters to Geo. Thomson)—an elliptical with an intense pentrative power. The right eye is smaller than the left, a peculiarity in formation observable in Peter Taylor’s portrait, and manifest in the cranial cast, the. right orbital cavity being smaller (splendid proof of identification). The eyes are surmounted by very powerful eyebrow ridges. This distinguishing characteristic is very strikingly depicted in the large Raeburn portrait, true to the cranial cast. The nose is aquiline, as was the poet’s father’s and all the family (see Peter Taylor’s nose). The njouth is well-shaped, full-lipped. “ with a. separation outwards ” (Gilbert Burns’s letters). The chin is small in proportion to the Strong face; it has tihe cleft. John 1 Syme states that the chin was the weak feature of the poet’s strong face, i The complexion, though so "intensely / dark, shows the ruddy glow of an open-air life: the dark 'hair of trie whisker and beard peeps through the skin with a bluish-black tint, even though clean-shaven. R AE33 UR N FEA TUR ES. Tim white neck-cloth is very carefully folded and swathed round th.) neck, and most beautifully painted. Raeburn certainly excelled in the representation of neck-cloths to the exclusion of all painters of his ora. The high rolled-collared eo-at is double-breasted *, the cutaway surtout of t)he time, and ns represented in marty of the Raeburn men's portraits. (See particularly portrait of the Hon Henry IJ-skinc. standing > He is wearing knee-breeches and grey Sanquhar hose The gloves he loaned to the Burns 1 " Glasgow**Exhibi° tion 831) dress is peculiarly that of 1 Burns, and so described bv manv Trtho saw him in the drawing-rooms of Edin- i burgh during Ins visit The chair—this very chair is depicted m numerous portraits by Raeburn. The fluted scrolled members of the arm-rests are very unusual and unique. Tn ail probability Raeburn had this very eihair made to his request. Tt is represented in manv of the Raeburn i nortrait-s. namely, Air Robert Adam. Macdonald of St Martin’s. Lord Pro- i vosr Eden, the Principal Robertson, ; Prof. Andrew Dalzell, George Chalmers ; of Pittcncrieff. and mauv others.