Lightfoot, Mary, Mrs (SCC Newsletter December 2001)

Mrs. Mary LIGHTFOOT 1750-1837 & her plagiarizing daughter !

I have read the main reference books on both these artists. After doing so it is clear that there is little verifiable information on Mrs. Lightfoot and even less on her daughter! Mrs. N. Jackson in her Dictionary has s no entry for Miss Lightfoot - I do not think she was aware of her existence as an artist. She refers to Mrs. Lightfoot's lack of probity but does not give any evidence for this statement. J. Woodiwiss in his book British Silhouettes" refers to Mrs. Lightfoot's tour to Glasgow & Edinburgh in 1786 - Mrs. McKechnie maintains this was undertaken by the daughter. A. Mayne in "British Profile Miniaturists" states that Mrs. Lightfoot was an assistant to John Miers in Leeds and left him to set-up on her own in Liverpool in 1785. Mrs. McKechnie disputes this completely. She is certain that John Miers and Mrs. Lightfoot did not meet until 1785, when J. M. lodged in her boarding-house for a few months in Liverpool. The only entry on Miss Lightfoot is in Mrs. McKechnie - in fact she has a longer entry on the daughter than the mother! Mrs. McKechnie worked very hard to establish some facts about the Lightfoot pair, but she had little sucess!Also, I think she got some vital facts wrong, which I hope to show in this article. In addition to the facts very different views are expressed by these authors on the quality of Mrs. Lightfoot's work, which I will also endeavour to 'examine". In my view Mrs. Lightfoot emerges as a competent artist in her own right. She did not have the panache of some of the great names, but she had charm & her own individual style. She was no copyist.

Background of mother & daughter. It seems that Lightfoot was not a very common name in Liverpool - so Mrs. McKechnie was able to identify two entries from the births & deaths register which might have 'fitted' for Mrs. Lightfoot's dates. Finally she decided she was likely to have been born in 1750 and died in 1837. She was unable to obtain any family history and had no knowledge about the 'fate' of Mr. Lightbody if he existed! By 1785 she was running a boarding-house and John Miers became her lodger for a few months during the summer of that year, whilst he was working in the Liverpool area. Mrs. McKechnie is certain that J. M. would not have become her lodger if she was already

(Silhouettes on this page are illus. in the Book except two.)

Mrs. LIGHTFOOT cont'd

his rival in the area! She is certain that Mrs. Lightfoot watched the master work and thought she could do as well. There is little doubt that Mrs. Lightfoot had a daughter living with her apparently called her own name MARY. It seems that the daughter also noted the master's methods etc. Mr. Miers returned to Leeds and it was some months after this that Miss Lightfoot (no doubt with the help of her mother) planned and made her trip to Glasgow & Edinburgh. She evidently knew that J. M. was planning to go to Edinburgh and decided to upstage him by getting there first. She advertised her visit in the local papers and left examples of her work at various shops. The problem was that she used some of Miers's work in the process. I think we know Mr. Miers' reaction and the fact that he was able to stop her in her tracks! In so doing he refers to her as Mrs. Lightfoot's daughter, whom he had clearly met at the boarding-house in Liverpool. There is no doubt that this took place but what age was Miss Lightfoot at the time? If her mother was born in 1750 she is unlikely to have had a daughter much older than 18 or 19 by 1786. Supposing she had had her daughter at 16 she would only be 20 years old at the most. I do not think a young woman of this age in the eighteenth century would have behaved in this way - even with a pushy mother's backing. So I have come to the conclusion that Mrs. Lightfoot was born earlier than 1750, and that her daughter was more likely to be in her thirties. This would fit with the shortness of Mrs. Lightfoot's career - i.e. from 1785 to 1792. I do not think a reasonably sucessful woman would give up at 42 unless she had other distractions! Miss Lightfoot seems to have given up after the J. Miers debacle and by 1791 had become a "victualler" - not likely at 23 or 24 I think!

The two ladies photographed above are on the left Mrs. Stanley painted in 1790. She is illustrated in the Book on page 651 illus. 1273. On the right is a silhouette sold at Bonhams on llth. February, 1999 Lot 28.

Mrs. LIGHTFOOT cont'd

The profile was believed to be Emma Hamilton. It was a very fine work showing Mrs. Lightfoot at her best. It made £2,200 a record for Mrs. Lightfoot. Both works show Mrs. Lightfoot's skill with the bow at the bust.

Mrs. Lightfoot's Work. As far as is known Mrs. Lightfoot only painted on plaster/composition in bust length. All writers are agreed that she painted in a more solid black than most of her contemporaries - this produces a more sombre effect according to Mr. Woodiwiss. At the present time it is not immediately obvious when compared with the middle-period work of Miers. Clearly she was very influenced by Mr. Miers although as I have indicated she developed her own style. Mrs. McKechnie did not give her a high rating and described her embellishments as "crude and in artistic". Although Mrs.Jackson acknowleged she had charm she felt the quality of her silhouettes were poor. On the other hand Mr. Woodiwiss refers to "delicately painted profiles". Her painting of hair has been criticised and described as being a 'pad-like' mass. Also her treatment of mens' shirt frills is said to be coarse and lacking detail. She often paints women in feathered hats or with veiling - I think she is quite sucessful with these but again comparisons are made with the work of Thomason and John Miers and she is found wanting! The bows with tassels at the bosom (as seen on the previous page) were acknowedged by Mrs. McKechnie to be her forte - but that was the only 'tick' she got - poor Mrs. Lightfoot! She sometimes painted a thin grey shadow-line under the bust-line - there is one on the Emma Hamilton silhouette, which is just visible. Apparently she was very confident in her ability to reduce images and advertised on her labels that she was prepared to reduce clients' handmade shades and dress these in the present taste so there was no need for "a sitting before the artist"!

The silhouette photographed above belongs to a Member of the S.C.C. It is a fairly 'severe' work - note the very typical bust-line

Mrs. LIGHTFOOT cont'd.

termination with the sharp point at the back. I have enlarged his shirt frill, which has not come out very well, but it does show a rather cursory 'treatment'. Also note how Mrs. Lightfoot painted men's buttons - these details are often quite important when making an attribution.

Two further works by Mrs. Lightfoot are illustrated on this page. The gent on the left has been photographed a little larger than life-size - he is housed in a press brass frame. Most of Mrs. Lightfoot's works are to be found in this type of frame, although Mrs. McKechnie reports that she has seen examples in pearwood frames. He is illustrated in the Book on page 652 illus. 1275. He is backed with a label, which is illustrated later in this article. I am sorry that his queue bow is lacking definition, but I think you can still see that it lacks the 'crispness of a similar bow by John Miers. The painting of his shirt frill also lacks this 'crispness'. Interestingly his bust-line termination is not so sloping or the point at the back so sharp as that of the gent on the previous page - in fact the shape can barely be distinguished from a Miers termination. The lady photographed on the right is a fine example of Mrs. Lightfoot's work - unfortunately her photo is a disappointment! Nevertheless it does show the details of the painting quite well. The sitter is named Lady Elcho and she is backed with a label, which I will comment upon and illustrate later in this article. Her veiling detail is unusual and perhaps unique to Mrs. Lightfoot. work - there is an enlarged photograph of this on the next page. Her bust-line termination is more typical of Mrs. Lightfoot's work.

During her somewhat short career as a silhouette artist Mrs. Lightfoot travelled to a number of towns to ply her trade. She is recorded as visiting Bath and Limerick in 1787. She may also have visited Scotland like her daughter. She kept all shades so that she could provide duplicates at any time.

Mrs. LIGHTFOOT cont'd

Above on the left is photographed an enlargement of the veiling from Lady Elcho on the previous page. It does not have the effect of the wonderful diaphanous veiling of Mr. Miers' ladies backed by his No. 10 label, but it does have it's own impact. I doubt if Mrs. Lightfoot would have been able to produce the Miers effect - no doubt she tried! Now compare this style with the lady photographed on the right. This work is recorded and illustrated in the Book on page 651 illus. 1269. as a work by Miss Lightfoot.

The work of Miss Lightfoot. As I have mentioned the only reference to this artist's work is in Mrs. McKechnie's Book. She illustrates two other works by Miss Lightfoot - both of these I have photocopied at the bottom of page 1 of this article. The rather dark and somewhat odd elderly lady has no label but is attributed on the basis of her bust-line termination and the sharpness of her point at the back! The gent is labelled with an "M. Lightfoot' label - Mrs. McKechnie took the view that these labels were not used by her mother - she would have used "Mrs." I am not sure about this asumption. There is no doubt that the lady above could easily be attributed to Mrs. Lightfoot on stylistic grounds - the 'treatment' of the veiling as we can see is identical to that of Lady Elcho. Of course they could have painted in the same style but I suspect that Miss Lightfoot was not as competent as he mother. As we know her efforts on Scotland in 1786 were not up to much and she seems to have quickly given-up to concentrate on the retail provision trade! The lady above is also illustrated in Arthur Mayne's "British Profile Miniaturists" as being a work by Mrs. Lightfoot on the basis of the label as he did not know about Miss Lightfoot. I think this is probably the correct attribution - not due to the rigorous researches of Mr. Mayne (whom I do not rate very highly in this respect!) but due to lack of knowledge! Most of the entry on Miss Lightfoot in the Book deals with her contretemps with Mr. Miers in Scotland in 1786. Whatever age she was at the time she must have had the encouragement and support of her mother in the venture. She was no doubt

Mrs. LIGHTFOOT cont'd.

in regular touch with her mother - asking her advice at least. Perhaps she was joined by her mother at some point. I fear it is highly likely that both were lacking in probity! All this is somewhat speculative I know, but we are short of facts about mother and daughter and likely to remain so.

Mrs. Lightfoot's Labels.

Above I have photographed two of Mrs. Lightfoot's labels. The one on the left backs the silhouette of Lady Elcho. Unfortunately 'Mrs’ has been largely obliterated by her backing material - you can just see part of the 's'. I can assure you that 'Mrs.' was on the label when she was purchased but she was loose in her frame so needed attention. I am not sure if she had the sentance around the bottom of the frame as shown in the label on the right. I think it is possible that it was there, but has again been covered. The type-face of this label has not been recorded but the wording is exactly the same as the wording on the second label. This label has darkened less over the years and it is possible to see the wording clearly. Several parts of words are missing on the left-hand side but these can easily be filled in. This label is illustrated in Mrs. McKechnie's Book on page 652 illus. 1275. The heading of both labels is PERFECT, LIKENESSES, MINIATURE PROFILES. From these two labels it is clear that Mrs. Lightfoot had at least two printings of her label, but she did not change the wording - whether we name these Label 1 and Label 2 I do not know!

As far as the content of the labels is concerned I have mentioned that she kept all shades so that duplicates could be produced at a later dats. Also, that she was quite prepared to reduce and copy customer's amateur life-sized efforts and dress these in the modern taste without the necessity of a sitting! I think this was not a usual 'offer' for most artists of the time. Perhaps she hoped it would be a money spinner!

Mrs. LIGHTFOOT cont'd

Miss Lightfoot's trade label.

Photographed on the right is the only recorded label for Miss Lightfoot. lt is illustrated in Mrs. McKechnie's Book on page 651 illus. 1270. Recently the work it backs had to be 'tidied-up and the initial ‘M’ was covered over. The owner did not intend this to happen - again you will have to take my word! The type-face is different from Mrs. Lightfoot's labels on the previous page - however the wording on the label is the same except for the absence of the sentance around the base .i.e. "All orders addressed to Mrs. Lightfoot, Liverpool will be Punctually dispatched". On the label she made the same claims as her mother for reduction of images, work on ivory/prepared to copy amateur images without the need for a sitting. It is not known if either Mrs. Lightfoot or her daughter worked on ivory as no examples are recorded. I doubt if they would have been very sucessful on this medium.

The three photocopies on this page are also from the Book and I think illustrate the detail of Mrs. Lightfoot's style very well. On the left is shown a 'pad' at the front of a lady's hair - Mrs. McKechnie felt this was a poor effort! It is on page 677 illus. 1422. In the middle is shown a gent's queue - note the ribbons and the tuft at the end. It is on page 678 illus. 1430. On the right is shown a gent's frill - here again Mrs. McKechnie thought it was a bit of a splodge, which did not compare with the work of John Miers, Thomason & John Field.

I think Mrs. Lightfoot is an interesting artist who paints with some charm, but I do not think she is in the front rank. Nevertheless I think a work by her should be in a 'serious' collection if possible. Her daughter and the work attributed to her is another matter. Even with a label "M. Lightfoot" I would not be certain that it was the daughter's work! Apart from her 'clash' with John Miers in Scotland in 1786 I doubt if she merits an entry as an artist. Perhaps you do not agree.