Charles, A. (SCC Newsletter November 1998)

A.Charles

fl: 1785-1800.

no signature-not a Charles!

NO SIGNATURE – NOT A CHARLES!

Charles was one of a small group of outstanding silhouette artists who were working in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Others in this group included J. Miers, Mrs. Beetham, Wellings and Torond. His style is distinctive yet over the years he has been mis-attributed more frequently than any other artist of comparable skill and renown. It is difficult to know why this has happened.

In this article, after a brief account of Mr. Charles' career, I am going to assert that if a work attributed to Charles is unsigned than it is not by Charles. To make my point:- in Section 1, I have used a number of illustrations of works by Charles that are all signed. I think these works show his style and presentation very clearly as well as his skill and individual artistic touch. These will be followed in Section 2 by further illustrations to show some of the false attributions that have been over the years (and in some cases still continue to be made). A few are well known, as these have been frequently illustrated in the literature on the subject. Others are not so well known and include three works that have been sold recently in the Salerooms. All these at one time or another have been attributed to A. Charles or the "Studio of A. Charles" - none in my view are by him. Some definately can be attributed to other artists of the late eighteenth century who were contemporaries of Charles - others cannot be attributed to any known artist. Finally this will be followed by a short Section 3 on Charles' handbills, label, inscriptions & signatures together with illustrations. This latter Section will draw certain inferences about Charles' character that I hope will add further weight to my 'thesis'!

In this article I am not going to look at Charles' miniature output – which I understand was quite extensive. I have only seen one or two for sale over the years at the Salerooms. These have not appeared to be of great merit and I understand from those who are knowledgeable in this field that he is not highly regarded as a miniaturist. This is in complete contrast to his reputation as a silhouette artist - it is perhaps a pity that he tried to be proficient in both. If he had not there might be more of his 'delicious' women around for us all to purchase for our Collections! Also I am only going to mention his work on glass briefly - in this connection I have illustrated Mr. Fitzgeald by Charles at the top of the next page. Note the Charles signature scratched on the glass at the bottom left of the bust-line. This must have been quite difficult to do - mirrorwise from the back of the glass. Works on glass by Charles are rare - only four are recorded in the literature. All four have been signed in some way on the glass. I do not think that Charles is at his best on glass and inevitably the style is more 'solid' than his work on paper. On the right of Mr. Fitzgerald I have illustrated the famous double portrait of George III and Queen Charlotte which is now in the Royal Collection. It was previously in the Wellesley Collection (as was Mr. Fitzgerald) and for years was attributed to Charles. Mrs. McKechnie attributed it in her Book to Hinton Gibbs - this was on the basis that fingerprinting had been used on the paler silhouette of the Queen. Charles did not use this technique - he only used a needle for his detail! Charles' style on glass has been also 'confused' with the work of Hamlet the eider - so perhaps Mrs. Peggy Hickman is to be 'forgiven' for attributing the silhouette of Miss Gomme to Charles in her book "Two Centuries of Silhouettes" published in 1971 - it is clearly by Hamlet. Finally as Mrs. McKechnie points out in regard to this prestigous double portrait - it is highly unlikely that Charles would have failed to sign it if he had painted it!

AA. Charles cont'd.

General:

We know nothing about Charles’ family circumstances or his personal life. This is after extensive research by Mrs. McKechnie. We do not know what his initial ‘A’ stands for. We do not know the date of his birth or death. It has been suggested that he might have come from foreign parts, but there is no actual evidence for this suggestion. However, we do know that he was in practice by 1785. The impression given at this time was that he was a young man, but how young we do not know - all is guesswork in regard to his significant dates. His last recorded newspaper advertisement/handbill was in 1797. There is no record that he painted silhouettes after 1800 (although he seems to have painted miniatures up to 1807). He claimed to be a member of the Royal Academy and frequently used the initials R.A. after his name. However, again after extensive research by Mrs. McKechnie there is no evidence that he was ever given this honour! The fact that he used these initials falsely tells us a bit about his character if nothing else.

Without doubt Charles was the master of self-extollation”. This is clearly illustrated in the wording of his advertisement and inscriptions - which will be developed in more detail in Section 3. He claimed to work on all mediums - paper, glass, plaster, ivory & enamel. He also advertised full-length portraits and conversation pieces - however, only bust-length works have been seen that could be attributed to Charles. Mrs. McKechnie has entries on Charles in four sections of her Book:- section Two -card & paper -section Three - on glass - section Five -on ivory and section Six - delineated sitters' features (this was to cover his miniatures). There is no 'evidence that he worked on plaster and I do not think his style would be suited to this medium.

He seems to have been quick to make money from his artistic efforts. Over his working years he claimed to have had thousands of customers - as much as 17,000 by 1797! He was appointed in 1793 "Likeness Painted to the Prince of Wales" This was evidently a fact! Understandably he never failed to use this title whenever he had an opportunity.

Mrs. Peggy Hickman in her article "Silhouettes by Charles of the Strand" published in Country Life on lOth. August, 1962 describes him as being the first silhouette artist to paint in the public view. She 'pictures' him in his studio in the Strand - sitting in a large window overlooking the Strand itself with the milling crowds of the day looking-on. I find it difficult to imagine and I am not sure of Mrs. Hickman's sources. I suppose anything is possible with Mr. Charles and his 'need' for publicity!

Section I - His style.

In Desmond Coke's book "The Art of Silhouette" on page 50 he states in regard to Charles' style -"his hair-work is the safest Glue", He goes on to remark "Charles painted hair by an ingenious formula combining an apparent minuteness with rapidity of execution". He compares his style with that of Mrs Beetham and points out how she showed every stroke (i.e. on the hair) whereas "the easy-going male with a hand cynically free left on the paper a swift tangle giving hardly less of an effect". I could not have described it better if I had tried even if it is a little gender biased for these days!

Charles' silhouettes of men were more restrained in style than those of his women. The bust-line terminations were almost 'standard' taking the form of a smooth curved line. With the women there was more variation and painting them seemed to give his style a greater 'freedom'. He was able to draw their bonnets and dresses with many swirling flourishes as well as their hair. Their bust-line terminations were more pointed and narrower than those of the men -usually ending in a point at the front. Sometimes this point was not so obvious as it was 'covered' with the folds of the dress.

He used gum arabic on both men and women in a skillful way to emphasise de-tails of men's jackets and the darker parts of women's clothing. A work without gum arabic is unlikely to be by Mr. Charles I think.

He painted on thinnish paper and there is no evidence that he used card. All signed works that I have examined confirm this. The size of the paper used was normally 4" by 3¼" but may have been trimmed down over the years due to the fragility of the paper.

Most of his silhouettes were housed in turned pearwood frames - or a small number are in pressed brass frames. It is almost certain that he did not use papier mache frames at any time.

Although Mrs.McKechnie in her main entry on Charles (pages 382-387) only used signed examples of his work for illustration she nevertheless made the following comment - "I should add that there is some stylistic variety not only among the unsigned profiles attributed to Charles (that it is without doubt! - my comment.) but even among those which he did not sign". In making this statement she clearly did not take my view that he signed all his works. I take issue with her on this and hope to show on the next two pages in particular that he did not vary his style to any extent that would make a work by him unrecognisable.

Men by Charles

On this page are illustrated a number of men painted and signed by Charles. I think you will agree that all look as if they were painted by the same hand. The two photographed above are from a Collection. The paper on which both have been painted has been cleaned in recent years. Both had an inscription on the back of the paper - although unfortunately that on the elderly - an elderly man has been covered-up with a backing paper to strengthen the original paper. This is a pity but the restorer at the time did not appreciate the significance! The three men photographed below were all sold at the McKechnie Sale at Sotheby's in 1978. All convey the Charles' style. The man photocopied on the right below is painted on ivory and set in a jewel. He is an attractive subject - but still painted in the same style as the other on this page. It was sold at the Pollak Sale at Bonhams in 1996. The signature is on the ivory.

Women by Charles.

On this page are a number of women painted and signed by Charles. On the right is a photocopy of a silhouette of an unknown lady owned by the V. & A. museum. Apologies for the quality of her reproduction but she is a wonderful example of Charles’ swirling lines style. Below her is a photocopy of a wonderful work sold at the Christie Sale in 1995 at Bonhams. She is Lady Margaret Hay. I am afraid only the original can do her justice! Below are two photographs – the one on the left has never been out of her frame and has a wonderful label on the back which I have illustrated later. The lady on the right is taken from an illustration from the Wellesley Collection Book and it is of the Duchess of Devonshire. I do not know who owns her now but I am sure most of us would like to possess her! She is again a wonderful example of Charles’ style at its best.Again it is not hard to see that all these women are painted by the same hand. Even without their signatures they would be recognisable. So why do we make so many mistakes over mis-attributuion.

Charles-misattributions

On this page are six photocopies of silhouettes that have all been attributed at some point to Mr. Charles. Above on the right is a gentleman owned by the V.& A. Museum he is clearly by Mrs. Beetham. He is illustrated in Mrs. Hickman’s book “Silhouettes” (national Portrait Gallery – pub. 1972.) next to him in the middle is a lady sold at the Pollack Sale in 1996 – she is almost certainly by Mr. wellings. To the left of her is a lady, who was in the Desmond Coke Collection – she was sold at the Christie Sale at Bonhams in 1995 where she was described as “School of Wheeler” by this time. I think she is almost certainly by Mr. Wellings. (I apologise for the detail defects in the photocopies but all the silhouettes on this page are very fine examples of the genre.) Below are a pair of silhouettes (lot 120) sold at the Harman sale 30th June at Bohams this year. The pair were attributed to Charles but I think they are more likely to be Mrs. Beetham or possibly Mrs. Bull. Finally a jewel with a silhouette of a gent said to be by Charles. It was sold at Pollack Sale in 1996 as such. I do not know who it is not Mr. Charles.

Charles – ‘Misattributions’.

Again I quote from Desmond Coke – “It may be said of Charles more even then of the other profilists that he must be astounded, at time disgusted, if from the other place he can observe the many silhouettes in various collections that bear the name of Charles.” Some ‘correction’ have been made in the years since this was written but others have been added to the list. On this page & the next are a few examples. The three silhouettes illustrated on this page are all ex-Wellesley collection. On the left above is said to be Fanny Burney – I do not know who painted her. On the right above is another Duchess of Devonshire – she is clearly by Mrs. Beetham. On the left below is a well known work now in the Royal Collection. She has been misattributed not only to Charles but also T. Wheeler & Crowhurst. It is now agreed that she is most likely to be by Mrs. Beetham. The sunject has been named as Queen Charlotte, Fanny Burney & a lady. Take your pick! Note she sits in a Beetham frame.

ARLES – HIS LABEL AND SELF-PUBLICITY.

The LABEL.

Charles has only one recorded label and this is illustrated above. It is a rare possession – this one is on the back of the bonneted lady illustrated in Section 1. This label was used by Charles in the 1780’s and the full text is given by Mrs. McKechnie on page. 383.On this label he mentions being “The original inventor on Glass and the only one who can take them in full length by a pantograph…………. deemed above comparison.” Even from this part quotation it is clear that Charles did not hide hid light under a bushel!

His HANDBILLS & ADVERTISMENTS.

These were put into the local press wherever he was working to announce his arrivaland to set out what he had to offer to his ‘clients’. Mrs. Mckechnie gives many examples of the handbills in her very full article on Charles on pages 382 – 387. Copies of many are in the Collection of the V&A Museum. Charles never missed an opportunity to mention his appointment to the Royal Family, his background in painting (i.e. the study of the Grecian, Roman and Flemish schools) and his professorship of painting (which he did not hold!) he quoted the number of his sitters i.e. 11,600 in 1793, 14,800 in 1794 and up to 16,600 in 1797. The number eventually reached 17,000 – but where are all these works ‘hidden’? There is no doubt many were miniatures and not silhouettes. His top price was 25 guineas, which is quite a lot of money – no doubt this was for conversation pieces (if he ever did these!).

Mrs. Mckechnie quotes a critique of Charles that was printed in a newspaper of the time. The language of the article was very convoluted in style but reading between the lines it was pretty critical and implied that whilst had talents he was somewhat slap-dash and charged too much! Charles as to be expected replied and pointed out that “his genius was a natural innate one” – but nevertheless he reduced his top price soon afterwards! This reduction it seems only lasted for a while. It is possible that Charles irritated people and his fellow-artists in particular with his exaggerated claims and the blowing of his own trumpet.

Sitting for Charles only took three minutes and he always stated in his handbills that there was “no need to dress the hair beforehand”. So presumably sitters could have what ever style they likes and this no doubt gave Charles all the scope he needed to show his particular flair for painting hair. Also Charles claimed that he could improve the work of other artists - so there was no end to his boasting!

CHARLES – SIGNATURES & INSCRIPTIONS.

INSCRIPTIONS.

These vary in their wording, I have illustrated one examples on the right. There is an illustrated example in Mrs. Mckechnie which is more elaborate – I quote “by Charles the /First profilist in England / No.130 Opposite the /Lyceum / Strand”. Another example is “by Charles R.A. Likeness Painter to the Prince of Wales No. 103 Strand”. I think it is very likely that all silhouettes by Charles had some sort of inscription on the back if they did not have a label. As I have mentioned earlier all works by Charles that I have taken out of their frames have had an inscription of some sort as well as the signature. There is little doubt that Charles did not want his artistic efforts to go unrecognized!

SIGNATURES.

These also varied. I have illustrated one example below – this is from the elderly man from my Collection photographed in Section 1. Other examples are “Charles fecit” sometimes the date was added to this. The “by” was always written with a small b. – perhaps to draw attention to the capital of Charles – who knows with Mr. Charles! For Mr. Charles not to sign an example of his work seems to me to be very unlikely – why would he miss this opportunity? It does not fit in with his personality or anything we know about him. The likelihood of signatures being completely rubbed off or erased is not very high also.

CHARLES – SUMMARY & REFERENCES.

SUMMARY.

I hope by the time you have reached this point I will have convinced you that without a signature it is not a wok by Mr. A. Charles. If I have not done so please think about it a little more. In Section 1 I tried to show that Charles has a distinctive style – which may have some minor similarities to other artists of the period such as Mrs. Beetham & Hamlet the Elder – but as a ‘whole’ is a unique and easily recognisable style. His special ‘skill’ being his treatment of hair and women’s clothing together with his panache. In section 2 I have illustrated a number of mis-attributions – which were seriously considered to be painted by Charles at one time or another. I hope you will agree that these works when compared to the works signed by Charles are not by the same hand. In section 3 and the general section I have attempted to give you something of Charles’ character and personality and to question whether such a person would fail to sign his works. I think not. A quotation from Desmond Coke in his book “Confessions of an Incurable Collector’ adds weight to my last point. ‘Charles, however,……..was not faint in self-praise and consequently in self-illumination.” He would not be likely to miss any opportunity offered to him to publicise his career. It is somewhat ironic that a person who made so much effort apparently to be I the limelight and to get his works known should have been so unsuccessful as far as future generations were concerned!

REFERENCES.

Mrs. S. McKechnie. British Silhouette Artists & Their Work 1760 – 1860

Arthur Mayne. British profile Miniatures. (published 1970)

Desmond Coke. Confessions of an Incurable Collector (pub.1928)

The Art of Silhouette. (published 1913.)

Mrs. Peggy Hickman. Two Centuries of Silhouette Celebrities in Profile

(published 1971.)

Silhouettes – National Portrait Gallery. (pub.1972)

Weyner Mills. One Hundred Silhouette Portraits from the Collection of

Francis Wellesley. (limited edition)

John Woodiwiss. British Silhouettes (published 1971.)

Peggy Hickman. Silhouettes by Charles of the Strand.