Hudleston’s Garden from Brodie Castle or “We Agree to Disagree” : A (Virtual) Bun fight with the Theosophists Running ‘Blavatsky News’

Agree to disagree or disagree to agree, why quibble? More to the point, what makes Theosophists come down from the supposedly high ground which they occupy to take issue with an obscure blogger albeit one with a disclosed identity?! That is the subject of this blog post. (I say “disclosed identity” because the bloggers of Blavatsky News have a becoming or, as the case may be, unbecoming reticence about making their identities known, even in private correspondence with me, merely signing ‘Blavatsky News’).

So, what is the fuss about? It springs from an old post by me in this blog, right here : "One Touch of Adyar Changes us Forever " . It is a post, a very long one, about some topography in one corner of Madras, a bit of topographic reconstruction, with the use of a few period drawings, the writing of which I enjoyed immensely. That was in October, 2008, a long time back and almost forgotten.

Nearly two years later however, a blog styled Blavatsky News ran a post of its own (July, 2010) pointing out some “errors” in my blog post. Still later, by the end of April, 2011 to be precise, I stumbled on this blog post when looking up the famous William Quan Judge case (this is an early 20th Century case that broke the Theo Society up into rival factions). Blavatsky Noose (henceforth BN) seems to be a blog run by three people of a distinctly theosophical persuasion, these contributors styling themselves Jaigurudeva, Hari Hamsa and Padma (real or fictitious names, I can’t say).

The link to the BN post by Padma is here (http://blavatskynews.blogspot.com/2010/07/hudlestons-garden.html) and you can read the full post on the blog. The preamble to the BN post extracts from the mast head of my blog about “chattering aimlessly & pointlessly” and about the URL “gibber and squeak”. A nice touch that, a pointed and suggestive reference that sets the context for BN’s own post, never mind the relevance of the extracts to that post!! Point taken but that, in itself, is not the reason for the bun fight. It is the “errors” the BN post attributes to me. And BN’s bland insistence that it is right and will not publish a retraction.
A Backgrounder

This is going to be a long post about an even longer, previous post in this blog. Ideally, those with the inclination and time should read the original post. It is a long post but, I hope, an interesting one which describes some local history albeit in its own meandering way. For those without the time or the inclination, here is a brief statement of the problem so that they may be spared a reading of the original post :

That initial post was about a building called Hudleston's House which stands, to this day, in the estate of the Theosophical Society in Madras. Hudleston's is on the south bank of the river Adyar, thus facing north across the river. And I wrote about a view of the building, by one F J Delafour, taken from Brodie Castle on the north bank of the river. And the trivial argument between me and BN is about which building in the Delafour watercolour below is Hudleston's, the one on the left or the one on the right of the picture. That is all that this post is about!




Now, to the “Errors” in my blog post that BN points out :

1. That I “mistake Blavatsky Bungalow, acquired by the Society in the 20th century, for Olcott’s residence, the octagonal building near the headquarters building”.

2. That I am “in error about the state of the Hudleston building when it was purchased by Olcott and Blavatsky, mistaking the additions done after 1907 by Mrs. Marie Russak as part of the original structure”.

AND (especially)

3. That “in the watercolour …. by F. J. Delafour, …. …. …., Hudleston's Garden is the first building on the righhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gift, and much the way the Theosophists must have seen it”. In my blog post I had said it is the building on the left.

“Error” 1 : Blavatsky Bungalow mistaken for the Octagon

This comment in the BN post was based on the statement in my blog post:


“a grand octagonal house which Col Olcott took for his residence, and the other, a still more spacious structure which is used as a guest house today. As you can see, the Octagon House is washing its face at the present time”

but the picture I provide is of Blavatsky Bungalow, which was not part of the original purchase.




Yes, BN is dead right, I am in the wrong . The picture above is of the Blavatsky bungalow (not part of the original purchase). I have admitted as much in my e-mail message to BN from which I quote below:

“it is very clear that I was wrong in describing in my blog as the Octagon, what is actually the Blavatsky Bungalow. Even though the pictures on the blog post are not necessarily to be read, in every case, with the text below, the picture and the text, in this specific case, do relate to each other. No disputing that and I will publish a correction in my blog.”

Sheer carelessness on my part, when writing a long post and wrapping pictures around the text, but I make no excuses. I am in error and admit my mistake, in all candour.

“Error” 2 : the Marie Russak (1907) additions in the Delafour drawing mistaken for the Hudleston building

This is what the original BN post says : “Unfortunately he is in error about the state of the building when it was purchased by Olcott and Blavatsky, mistaking the additions done after 1907 by Mrs. Marie Russak as part of the original structure.”

On a plain reading, the use of the words “state of the building” suggests that I had assumed in my blog post that the original Hudleston building has remained unaltered to this day. But I have said no such thing. On the contrary my blog post states, right above my long shot photo of Hudleston's : “you will see that the hocus-pocus or superstructure in my digicam shot, additions by the Theosophists to provide rooms for Annie Besant, is missing from the Delafour view of the 1840's. But if you can visualise the pile minus the superstructure, it is Hudleston's and the angles are about right.”

When this was pointed out to BN, I got a response with BN’s comments on the other two “Errors” but a response or explanation in respect of this “Error” 2 was discreetly avoided. Naturally because, whilst not mentioning Marie Russak (a rich American widow who in 1907 paid for and carried out extensive improvements on the river front of the structure) by name, I had clearly pointed out the additions made by her.

What Russak had done, in effect, was to build an extension spank in front of the original north front of Hudleston's but attached or connected to it by a small "bridge" or vestibule (see picture below which was in the original post but not discussed in the text). Still later, Annie Besant carried forward the "improvements" by the addition of a floor or two. The result is that you could no more see the original facade from across the river.

It is possible that BN's quibble was that I should have called my picture, from across the river in the original post(see below, after the "bridge" pic), "Russak's" and not "Hudleston's. That may well be the case in theospeak. But to expect me to conform would be mere hair splitting because the entire structure is one whole integral building which, for me and a number of others, is always Hudleston's (else, when describing the building, we would have to talk of the Russak wing, the Olcott modifications, the Besant floor for J Krishnamurti and so on!). Moreover, I do not have a Blavatskyan ability to conjure up either the "materialized" or "astral" forms of the north front as it was in 1856 or in 1882 in a pic taken in 2008. I can only snap what exists. And I have referred to the alterations or modifications. So, BN has, clearly, jumped the gun.





OK, round 2 to me.

“Error” 3 : Is Hudleston’s the Building on the Left or the Right of the Dealfour drawing?

“Error” 3 is a most interesting question, the deciding round as it were! Why? I will explain in due course but, first, a correction and then a recap of the purported “error”.

I should firstly say that I think the artist of the drawing below might be F J Delatour (with a T and not an F as in Delafour). Christies who auctioned the drawing in 2008, goofed up, I suspect, in reading the signature because there is no such name as DelaFour in the annals of Madras, as far as I have been able to check. I think he most likely was one Francis Delatour from the family which took part ownership in the old, and subsequently bankrupt, Madras firm of Arbuthnot & Co. His name appears in a few Madras listings of the period (and the family were given to variously spelling the name as Delatour, Delautour and even Lautour).




Now, if you see the Delatour picture above, there are two main buildings, to left and right, neatly bisected by the column in the foreground. There are also two hazy outlines of what look like outbuildings on either side of the building on the right. You can see them by zooming the image on the Christies site here : http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/ZoomImage.aspx?image=/LotFinderImages/D50749/D5074958.

BN’s contention is that : “in the watercolour …. by F. J. Delafour, “The river Adyar, Madras, from the terrace of a villa,” circa 1836 (because Elphinstone Bridge, shown at the right edge of the picture, was not built until 1840, V. Narayan Swami believes the date to be 1856 not 1836 as given for it), Hudleston's Garden is the first building on the right, and much the way the Theosophists must have seen it.”

Hrrmph …. so, according to BN even my attribution of Hudleston House, the centerpiece of my blog story, as the building on the left of the pic is wrong!! Is that right (or left)? We will see.

When I protested that I am right about the building on the left being the main building, here is what BN wrote to me (and my responses are below each comment):
“In the matter of the building you identify as Hudleston’s Garden in the picture: if you insist that it is the building on the left of the column, then we must agree to disagree for the following reasons:

a. The octagonal bungalow is clearly shown in the picture on the right, as also the location of the main building to the guest house to its right.

The Octagon and the guest house that BN refers to are two buildings on either side of Hudleston's and they are not seen in the Delatour because of the tree line (alternatively, these two outbuildings were probably not in place in 1850 odd when Dleatour drew his view). That the distant (right of pillar) building in the drawing is Hud House because there are two outbuildings either side of it is a mere assertion by BN, which ignores the fact that, viewed from Brodie's across the river, Hudleston’s (OK, Russak's annex) is in the direct, dead straight, line of sight (whereas in the Delatour the building on the right of the pillar is on a sharp right diagonal, 75 degree, orientation). Per BN, these outbuildings are respectively the guest house and the Octagon. The outlines are so hazy, who is to know? And, more to the point, who is to say? One can certainly not discern the outlines of the Octagon and the structure on the right of the main building is too small to be the guest house. We need to dismiss this assertion as I will make clear in my responses below to BN’s further comments.

b. In a river view sketch of the property, published in The Path of New York, June 1892, as part of the series “Habitations of H.P.B.”, the main building is depicted in much the same way as the structure in the painting’s right.

BN is referring to a PDF document of The Path (a journal published by the very same William Judge in looking up whom I came across the BN blog) of 1892. You can reach it here : http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophypdfs/the_path_v7_april_1892_march_1893.pdf
and pages 71 to 75 refer.

But, I publish, further below, the scans of the article, “Habitations of H P B”, referred to by BN. The article is so relevant in context, and a reading of it so essential to follow the argument, that I will provide my responses to this and the further two arguments of BN following those scans.

c. The building on the left in the painting features columns and a roof; descriptions of the building occupied by the Theosophists indicate no such addition (see Hodgson’s 1884 plan of the upper rooms). Are you saying that Hudleston’s Garden had such columns and roof and that by 1882 said columns AND roof were removed (in a building facing the river and the effects of the Madras monsoon!)? We have never seen that claim made before.

My responses to these queries appear below the scanned pages of the article “Habitations of H P B”.

d. And then what happened to the buildings on the right, if it isn’t the property occupied by the Theosophists? Walking along the river from the headquarters building to the bridge you will find no remnant of such a structure. Once you pass Arundale House, which was constructed in the 20th century, you will find no other building till you come to the main gate. Are you also saying that these buildings were also torn down, with nothing left of them, not even the foundations?”

Again, the scans of the article first and the answers to these (increasingly hectoring and grand inquisitorial) queries thereafter!

SCANS : Habitations of H P B











OK, I will deal with each of the above objections or “contentions”. And, if there is any reader still left at this point, I must crave his or her indulgence and attention given the apparent tedium of all this. (It is a tedium not of my making but one that arises from the convoluted and absurd arguments put forth by BN). Because what follows is really important for an understanding of the the way the main building developed over the years. And, of course, to settle the question of its true location (i.e, whether it is to the left or the right of the pillar in the Delatour picture).

First, then : BN b. In a river view sketch of the property, published in The Path of New York, June 1892, as part of the series “Habitations of H.P.B.”, the main building is depicted in much the same way as the structure in the (Delatour) painting’s right.


BN is referring to the picture, taken from a photo, on page 75 of The Path (the 5th of the scans above). Note that the operative term in the BN response is : "much the same way". But I am sorry, equivocation and hedging won't do when it comes to these things, either the two buildings (in the Path and the Delatour depictions), when compared, look the same or they don't.

They are two different buildings. All you have to do is zoom the 5th scan above and compare it with the zoom view of the Delatour in the Christies site here. The principal difference is that the two "towers" clearly seen on either end of the river front in the Path article picture (scan 5) are missing in the Delatour building on the right of the pillar.

There are 3 reasons why the two "towers" (and the superstructure or 'lean to' on the terrace in the scan 5 pic) are significant :

1. BN would do well to read page 73 of the scan (the 3rd scan above) which says, right at the top, that "Her (Blavatsky's) room was an addition to the building (Hudleston's) and in a way joined the two towers which rise at the back (the North or river front) corners at either end". Parentheses and words within them added by me for clarity. The Blavatsky chambers were added to the first floor level only in about 1883, post the 1882 purchase by Theo Soc.

2. Ergo , in Delatour's time (c. 1850 - 60) the lean to's on the top of the building (as seen in scan 5, between the two towers) did not exist. But the "towers' did.

3. BN is erring, by asserting that the Delatour buillding in the right of the pic is Hudleston's, in imputing to a mid 19th Century drawing certain additions (the 'lean to' or barsati or superstructure) made, post acquisition in 1882, by the Theosophists.

And, don't forget that the buildings in the two pictures look completely different, no question of "much the same way".

Now to BN's point c. : "The building on the left in the (Delatour)painting features columns and a roof; descriptions of the building occupied by the Theosophists indicate no such addition (see Hodgson’s 1884 plan of the upper rooms). Are you saying that Hudleston’s Garden had such columns and roof and that by 1882 said columns AND roof were removed (in a building facing the river and the effects of the Madras monsoon!)? We have never seen that claim made before."

Simple, the Hudleston building, even as it originally was (and before the Theosophists mangled the river front into a rabbit hutch), did have columns on both fronts. Here is a floor plan of the building as it was in 1882, the year the Theos purchased it (taken from the Theo Soc's own publication, a little booklet titled "Adyar : Historical Notes & Features upto 1934"). In this plan, the river front is the one at the top (and you can also see the outlines of the two "tower" wells at either end) :



And you can see that the building to the left of the pillar in the Delatour has two "towers" on the top of the roof. OK, but, as the Theo Soc booklet says, other than the ground storey, there was just the one room in one of the "towers' at the top of the building with the rest of the roof being flat. So, it is clear that Delatour put in a full first floor to add appeal to the drawing but retained the "towers" at the second storey or roof level. (Although this is a capriccio element in his drawing, he seems to have anticipated some of the additions to come!) That is one of my reasons for saying that Delatour has put Hudleston's in the left of his picture. The other reason is the very thing that BN objects to, the columns.

A Paragraph (with the I Floor Plan) added subsequently on the 6th May 2011) : I realised that I had not touched on a reference to the 1884 "Hodgson" Plan of the I Floor mentioned above by BN. This I Floor plan was made post the additions to the roof or 1st floor level carried out in about 1883.So, that plan is completely irrelevant to the debate because the Delatour drawing dates from well before 1884. I don't know which it is, whether BN is being merely specious or genuinely caught, transfixed in a theosophical time warp of 1882 - 84 in all the quibbles it raises. Anyhow, that famous "Hodgson" plan is reproduced below (note the two tower wells again) :




That leaves BN's objection "d. And then what happened to the buildings on the right, if it isn’t the property occupied by the Theosophists? Walking along the river from the headquarters building to the bridge you will find no remnant of such a structure. Once you pass Arundale House, which was constructed in the 20th century, you will find no other building till you come to the main gate. Are you also saying that these buildings were also torn down, with nothing left of them, not even the foundations?"

Ho! But I never did say nothing about the buildings on the right in my original blog post. And for good reason. Because, contrary to what you imply about those structures being part of the Theo estate (not to mention all that make believe about one of them looking "much the same way" as Hud house), I consider them to be buildings outside the estate and on the other side of the Elphinstone bridge.

Let us go back to the Christies zoom image of the Delatour. The bridge, at first glance, seems to stop midway on the river (before the stand alone big tree on the extreme right) but that impression is more apparent than real because the Adyar (being tidal at this point) is almost a kilometre wide. If one opens again the Christies zoom image , one can just about make out what could be the true land fall of the bridge, just in front of the big building. There is what looks like the final arch of the bridge just in front of the building and to the eastward of it.

So, what I can say is that this right hand side cluster of buildings in the Delatour are those further westward of the Theo estate boundary and the Elphinstone bridge. In support of this I go back to the article in the Path (scan 4 above) which clearly shows a building cluster to the west of the bridge. As the text on scan 4 (page 74) says : "the vicinity was once in great demand before the trade of Madras declined", a decline to which Arbuthnots, owned in part by the Delatours at one time, contributed.

Mind you, this is what I thought even when writing the first post but, not having held the drawing in the hand, I did not want to aver or sign in blood about this (which is why I avoided mention in my first blog post).

However, the more I think about this the more likely this seems to me to be the case. Because, looking through the little Theo Soc booklet mentioend above (Adyar Historical Notes), I came across what Annie Besant has to say about the view from her room on the top of Hudleston's :

Describing a pan view, east to west, from her window (the same set of rooms in which Blavatsky lived): "We see two large houses, nearly hidden by trees,beyond the bridge, and then more trees, hiding the western horizon".

A description that accords completely with the text and picture of the view across the bridge (page 74, scan 4) of the Path article:



So, I am more certain now than before that the structures on the right of the Delatour relate to the houses west of the Elphinstone. And I am emphatic in saying that this cluster has nothing to do with Hudleston House and its two outbuildings.

Art History, Topography & the Codicil in the BN Response

There, that is what I have to say in response to the BN criticisms of my blog post. Simple, right? One might almost say "Elementary .... etc". So, we are done and we can all get on with the rest our lives, can we?! Well, yes .... almost. But I must refer to a codicil in the BN reply (at the end of all the arguments dealt with here) :

"Yes, we understand, looking at European landscape paintings of India from this period, we are not looking at photographic representations. Your post made us reread the chapter on “The Indian Picturesque: Images of India in British Landscape Painting, 1780-1880,” in C.A. Bayly’s An Illustrated History of Modern India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1991, for which we must thank you.

The painting in question features much of the criteria described therein: India as Britons wanted to see it. So who knows what the building on the right was to represent (though it is very similar to the rectangular building facing the river, adjacent to Blavatsky Bungalow, with its columns and all). Perhaps the artist thought it this was a more suitable view from Brodie’s “Castle.”


Art history to the rescue, is it? Or insurance (i.e 'trust in God but tie the camel's legs also')?! Clearly, I detect more thana little uncertainty and hedging on the part of BN!! But who needs G H R Tillotson, C A Bayly et al, one might as well follow Shakespeare or Sheridan in the matter, for all the constructs art historians write (investing the artists with a 'romantic vision' which the artists themselves probably did not feel or share). BN would do better, but not much better, to read landscape history by W G Hoskyns or Oliver Rackham (though probably not Simon Schama)! Ideally, BN should study the Delatour drawing closely and relate it to the known topography of the place by stepping out of the hallowed precincts of Theo Soc into the real world across the river. I mean, BN ought first to understand the original Hud House structure thoroughly and then go and stand where the artist stood before twitting my post by airing such idiosyncratic and absurd arguments (which betray BN's poor knowledge of the Hudleston structure and location). Because I have got my facts and my topography right.

As I often say, the only way to understand or view a topographic drawing is to "focus, squint and (as it were) enter the picture"! It is only then that a whole world of depth and dimension and of topography and what the artist did to the topo, will open up. This internal evidence, related with the external (lie of the land) is, in my experience, the best way to understand what the artist was up to, art history be damned. It follows that I am no art historian, nor an expert on art, though I have, and have always had, a consuming interest in drawings and prints of the period.

So, I can say with confidence that Delatour was not imbued with any romantic vision when taking this view. His execution is faithful to the topography and the sweep of the river and includes the island in the foreground.. As I have discussed above, he has put Hudleston's exactly where it stands, i.e in the direct line of sight from Brodie Castle. And he has drawn the bridge and some distant buildings beyond the bridge (and beyond the Theo Soc boundary) in the right pespective and orientation (but, to appreciate this, one must stand on the terrace of Brodies where Delatour drew from). His only sin or caprice was to give Hudleston House an extra floor. And perhaps to conceal its outbuildings (the Octagon and the Guest House) behind the casuarina trees. Or may be they weren't built in 1850 odd when the drawing was done, we don't really know.

Here is a small strip from a Madras map of 1920 with me (it is a large map, 3 inches to the mile and a deadly accurate one, based on the usual cadastral triangulation). This section shows what I mean by the direct line of sight between Brodie and Hud House (the deviation from the straight and true being only a 5 degree diagonal) :



Before I move on to more general observations, I must thank Blavatsky News, though that is an amorphous, pompous name with which to sign off personal mails. I wish I knew which one of the three in BN was writing to me, may be it is a reply drafted by a committee of the three. It could be Padma, who made the original BN post but I am not sure. I am not even sure if Padma is a male or female, a real or fictitious name (though I asked about the latter). Which one then? Prompts me to recall the lines of Eliot :

Who is the third who walks always beside you?
When I count, there are only you and I together
But when I look ahead up the white road
There is always another one walking beside you
Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded
I do not know whether a man or a woman
—But who is that on the other side of you?

Well, regardless, I have to thank BN because that post (and BN's reluctance to publish a simple retraction) got me revisiting an old but favourite topic. I may write tongue in cheek about BN but that is only in an effort to liven up the post and to sustain the interest of any unsuspecting reader who may chance on this blog. In actual fact, I don't think this is a slanging match between us but, hopefully, it will be a joint effort to understand better the history of the building and the topography. I can see that the BN trio are committed to the building's heritage and history and that they are serious about what they write.

The Price of the Building in 1882

In the course of our mail exchanges, BN asked : "And why did Huddleston’s Garden come on the market so cheaply in 1882?"

My 'know it all' response was : "As to the price of the building in 1882, I think it was a high price given that there was no easy access in those days to the south of the river. Moreover, there was nothing in the Adyar Besant Nagar area, I am told, even as late as 1970 except waste land, gardens and fields plus a few settlements. It would seem to me that the price paid was high, i.e right."

Sorry BN, I now find that I had lied. There is a write-up by Col Olcott in the Adyar Historical Facts booklet which describes the purchase of the property in 1882 and I quote from it : ".... .... the price asked, Rs 9000 odd or $ 600, was so modest, in fact, merely nominal, as to make the purchase of it seem feasible even for us. .... .... .... .... The cheapness of the price is accounted for by the fact that the opening of the railway to the foot of the Nilgiri Hills brought the lovely sanatorium of Ootacamund within a day's ride of Madras, caused the high officials to spend half the year there, and threw theri grand Madras bungalows on a market without bidders. What I paid for Hudleston's Gardens was about the price of the old materials if the building should be torn down. In fact, that was to have happened if we had not turned up as buyers just when we did."

Thus Col Olcott on the price of the property. Yes, I remember another account (see my previous psot) stating there was a mortgage on the property for Rs 7500 or nearly 90 % of the price. That implies, firstly, that the property was bought by the Indians on spec (with a mortgage) and, next, that, since the mortgage outstanding was almost the market value, there was pressure to sell it for just enough to repay the mortgage and to cut losses.

Why Bother at all?!!

Alright, there we are but, paid servant and performing flea that I am (my each livelong day being usually spent in just keeping one step ahead of the game in the workplace), why spend so much time and effort on a blog post that few people, if any, will care to read? What can be the motive for writing and inflicting on the world a tedious piece on some remote topography which the world doesn't really need?

Before I explain, a picture or two. First, a shot of Hud House from across the river (filched from a travel site) :



See what I mean? Up close, Hudleston's river front, as modified by Marie Russak, Annie Besant and sundry others, maybe an architectural kitsch, thanks to the execrable, insensitive modifications. Fotunately, the foreground on the river side is so narrow that you are spared the full vista.

But at a distance, from across the river, in its riverine setting, framed against the blue Madras sky, the building has outline, a grand, compelling presence and it makes an emphatic statement. In fact, it speaks to one, as at once an eloquent and mute witness to the life and times in Theo Soc and as an inseparable, memorable part of the Madras skyline for nearly 200 years. Also, just look at the view from the building itself (pic "borrowed" from a Leadbeater site) :



When I see this building, it is forever Madras to me, a building that housed many an illustrious theosophist, a personal roll of honour that includes the kind, gentle Col Olcott, the great Annie Besant and the quiet, self effacing George Arundale not to forget J Krishnamurti. That is another reason, the most important reason, for dwelling at such length on its location, "wasting" my time and yours. I leave you with some more visuals (all of it plunder from the internet) :



Charles Leadbeater on the roof terrace of Hudleston's as modified and built over (c. 1915 I would think). See what I mean about the deplorable, makeshift architectural "improvements". Nevertheless a valuable pic, supposedly taken by J Krishnamurti.







The Messianic & the Saturnine : This one above is a favourite, showing J Krishnamurti (left) and Charles Leadbeater (right) on the roof of Hudleston's. Nitya, Krishnamurti's brother, is in the middle. Across the river can be seen Brodie Castle. Wish this picture, from a paperback with me, would reproduce better but this is the best possible.

These pics show how the character of the building has changed over the years. One thing hasn't changed though. I refer to the presence of the flying foxes or fruit bats (see scan 4 of the Path article above). I am pleased at their continuing adherence to theosophy as a sign that the Theo Soc has been taking excellent care of the eco system within the property, even if the fruit bats have more drastic methods of expresing their contempt for my blog (see end of previous post on the subject) than BN!

A Long Lucid Interval & A Cluttered Hang : Not Forgetting the Peacocke Reunion in Hamilton, NZ, Oct 24 & 25

Firstly, let me wish you all a Very Happy Diwali!! Secondly, a word or two about why this blog has been soporific for the last six months. Since April, to be precise.

To begin with, May and June that is, it was entirely due to work and late, very late, nights in the office. Taking a bit of a breather in July, I got involved with an exhibition of my collection of prints in August, the second such since 2008. The one in 2008 was on engravings of Madras city and consisted of some forty-five items. This year's exhibition expanded on the idea and was called "From the City to the Presidency" and a hundred items were displayed. 'Presidency' refers to the old Madras Presidency of the British Raj, consisting of the whole of the four present day states of South India, except for the old Princely states of Hyderabad, Mysore and Travancore. Displays of Madras city were also included, about twenty in number
but there were no repeats from last year's set.

The exhibitions were held during the annual Madras Week celebrations, commemorating the founding of Madras in 1639 (22nd August) by the East India Company merchants, Francis Day and Andrew Coggan.

As in the previous year, a catalogue in colour was issued at the exhibition and the greater part of August was spent in writing this. It took some time, what with work and with the need to relate the display to the context of the exhibition, the background, the history, the notes on the artists and so on. And from Septemeber until now, I simply didn't get round to making a post, put it down to laziness.

Never mind, here are some pics of the exhibition. Rather a cluttered hang is it not, the gallery is no Guggenheim but is quaint and interesting in its own right (look at the old roofing and flooring), it was actually the hot water bath room (water heated by wood fire, as common in India over 60 or 80 years back) of a GOM called Sir C P Ramaswami Aiyar, with his 5 acre estate and house in the heart of the city having, later, been converted into a Foundation etc by the family. True to its origins, the small gallery is called the Vennirul (hot water bath) gallery!









Note the roofing and flooring in the gallery, I was told about 2000 people visited over the 10 days the display was on and I am sure 1950 at least went away bemused and wondering what all the fuss was about, may be 50 or less spent some time on the exhibits and, perhaps, 5 or 10 really liked it!! Fairly good press coverage, some with mugshot (why? it should have been more pics of the the engravings!), and a nine page colour spread and report in a lifestyle mag. But on the whole, the event must have left about 1950 people rather puzzled.

The pics are not mine but lifted from a well known local blog which covered the events of Madras week.

Turning to more important and topical subjects, the Peacockes in the antipodes are having a reunion in Hamilton, New Zealand on the 24th and 25th of this month (website). I expect there will be much exchange of anecdotal and archival matter, old photos and letters, a get together of cousins and distant cousins. It must be late spring, if not early summer, in New Zealand at that time and I am sure there will be beer and wine flowing as well as great conviviality. I am sure the Reunion will be a memorable and most pleasurable one and I wish all the Best to the Peacockes attending and, especially, to Mary Winter and Andrew Peacocke, two of the organisers.

I have been invited, most kindly and repeatedly, by Mary and Andrew but am unable to go. However, I went to the Nilgiris for an all too brief week end and took some pics of some of the sort of hillscape scenery that Stephen Ponosonby Peacocke, who founded the Peacocke clan, had drawn and left for us to enjoy (see post : "Ooty Preserved").

My pics were taken with the BlackBerry's rather unsatisfactory camera but the haze and mist helped to some extent in covering up for the deficiencies of the camera and in the cameramanship. The pics were mostly shot from a vantage point some 6000 feet above sea level.



View of the Rolling Downs from Hadathorai near Kotagiri



The Deccan Escarpment : Looking North ex Kodanad Point



South Eastwards ex Kodanad Point : the Bhavani Resrvoir



Bhavani Reservoir in the Mist



Doddabettah Peak (Hazily) ex Hadathorai (in the middle of pic, at top & above the township on the slopes)



Deccan Plateau ex Kodanad (North Easterly View)



Due East ex Kodanad Point (taking in the craggy Rangaswami Bettah) looking towards the Biligirirangan Range (aka "the Billies")



Looking Eastward to the town of Satyamangalam (Centre B'ground)Nestling in the Foothills



Our Driver Unwittingly providing Scale to the View!!



The Moyar Valley with Rangaswami Bettah in Stark Relief



Rangaswami Bettah Standing Proud of the Range of Hills (it is actually about 5000 feet high and is climbed monthly by the locals for worship at a temple on the very peak!)



The Moyar Valley showing the Winding Course of the River : the Mysore Plateau to the North (the settlement you see is a village of the Kotahs a dwindling tribal people, the only habitation in this 1000 sq KM valley - who said India is thickly populated?)



The Moyar Valley to the North : A Clearer View



Looking due South (ex Hadathorai near Kotagiri) towards the City of Coimmbatore = the one in the Foreground is the Town of Mettupalayam



View towards Coonoor ex Hadathorai



Warwick House, Kotagiri : A Typical Planter's Bungalow - Note the two Men on the Roof : Blots on the Landscape

God's watercolours, I call these views! Something Stephen Ponsonby Peacocke understood very well and delineated beautifully. My cameramanship is poor and though I do watercolours they are sixth grade stuff, as my wife is always quick to remind me. But Peacocke got the views to perfection, he had a photographic eye, a true artist'ss eye.

And these pics are included here as a sort of curtain raiser to the Peacocke reunion. For the clan foregathering in Hamilton to see the landscape their ancestor drew (and as it looks to this day). It is also a peace offering to Mary Winter and to Andrew Peacocke for my failure to attend the reunion.

Zoffany's Cock Match & Other Conversation Pieces : A Croaking Chorus or the Frogs of Aristophanes?

What is a Conversation Piece? In the original sense in which the term was used, it referred to a drawing or painting of a group of people, such as a family group,engaged in conversation or in some activity like dining ("soul food"?) or sport. These days, the term is used to refer to any drawing of a group that interests the viewers and leads to conversation about the subject, or subjects, of the drawing. I understand Conversation Pieces as a genre began first to be painted in England in the early 18th Century and portrayed prominent people or high society.

There are a number of framed pictures, mostly engravings plus the odd watercolour or pen & ink, hung in my house. And my wife is beginning to get annoyed with me. In truth, she is already extremely annoyed with me not only about the hang, or overhang, some of it hanging askew at times but also about the boxes of unframed prints and, especially, the books pulled out from their shelves and strewn about in the bedroom and in my study (which she dismissively calls the book room). On such occasions, I very reasonably observe to her that as she is not having to carry the load on her head, why should the litter trouble her at all. And that is when the argument starts.

But that is not what I wanted to say as it is easy enough to keep one jump ahead of trouble at home. All I have to do is put the books back in their shelves before she tidies up on me, so that is simple and easy enough. My difficulty is altogether different and I will try to explain below.

I have already said that the house has lots of framed pics hung in most of the rooms.But none of my visitors or friends give them a second look. That I can understand, everyone need not be taken up with these images, you need to be interested in that sort of thing. But when I show them one of my Conversation Pieces, that too one of the most celebrated of that ilk, and it leaves them cold, that can I not understand. For all the blank reaction it provokes, my visitor could be looking into the mirror and thinking "hey,very ordinary, nothing worthy of note here", as if seeing his or her own image. Here is that Conversation Piece I am referring to (pic taken through the glass and slightly out of focus in trying to avoid the flashback, but there is good clarity if you click and enlarge):



This is an engraving by Richard Earlom of the celebrated drawing, Col Mordaunt's Cock Match, by Johann Zoffany, drawn in 1784. It is a goodly sized engraving, image area 18 x 26 inches (height preceding width), published as a mezzotint in 1792. The version with me has added hand colouring, which I suspect is period but aftermarket. Here is the original uncoloured mezzotint :



Col Mordaunt's (Zoffany's) Cock Match

You can see that it is a busy scene and a crowded picture. It needs a key and I did manage, years ago, to scrounge a xerox of the original key from a dealer, Sotheran of Sackville Street. Unfortunately, I can not trace the key from out of all the bumf with me or the key has been tidied up on me, not sure which. I did manage to get a key from a Bombay dealer but it is a reduced version and doesn't reproduce well(but do click and enlarge, you can then see the numerals and text clearly enough) :



Johann Zoffany (1735 - 1810)

With a picture like this I had better begin with the artist, Zoffany. He was born in Frankfurt - on - Main, the son of a Bohemian Jew who was court architect to the Prince of Thurn und Taxis. His drawing skills were noticed even at school and as he did not distinguish himself at studies, Zoffany was apprenticed to a painter at a young age. After about a year of this, he "borrowed" some gold from his father's money chest and betook himself to Rome where he spent the next ten or twelve years as an itinerant artist, copying pictures from the galleries and so on. By this time Zoffany heard of his father's death and, judging it safe to return home, he took up residence at Coblenz in Germany. He married a local girl, it was not a happy marriage for the lady at any rate, Zoffany is said to have been unkind to her.

Unable to establish himself as an artist in Germany, Zoffany moved again, this time to England in about 1760. His initial struggles included time spent as a painter of clock dials, these clocks now being collector's items, and apprenticeship to an artist called Benjamin Wilson. Zoffany was not very happy in Wilson's employment but, being a lover of theatre, made the acquaintance of the many theatre and acting types who frequented Wilson's London studio. And that was how he came to the notice of David Garrick, the theatrical personality and impresario. Followed membership of the Society of Artists, many commissions for Conversation Pieces and portraits, including "theatrical" portrayals, then election to the Royal Academy as one of the original members (see below his portrait of the academicians, the artist having put himself at left extreme) and Zoffany soon came to attention of King George III. This was to lead to a visit to Italy and to the production of the Tribuna of the Uffizi, a Conversation Piece by Royal Commission. Of that more anon, let us go first go with Zoffany to Lucknow.

John Maddison : Zoffany 1783






Academicians of the Royal Academy : Zoffany 1771 -- 72
(to see the image in all its glory go to the Royal Collection)

The bottom having dropped out of the home market for Conversation Pieces by about 1780, due to overkill no doubt, Zoffany decided to go to India to make his fortune. He put up the necessary sureties to the East India Company and got permission to make the journey to India. One of the sureties was John Maddison, stockbroker and a member of the Goldsmith's Company, whose portrait Zoffany drew. Maddison also took care of Zoffany's affairs during the latter's absence in India. Zoffany was not permitted by the Company to travel on board an East Indiaman for some reason but managed to circumvent this restriction by signing up as a Midshipman aboard a company vessel.
In Calcutta

Zoffany arrived in Calcutta in September 1783 after an eight month voyage, including a month en route in Madras, and soon found his way to Lucknow. He knew the artist William Hodges who was touring India at the time. It is likely that Hodges had written to him about the fabled wealth of Lucknow in Oudh and the rich pickings to be had there. It is also known that Zoffany met Hodges when he arrived in Calcutta, so it is probable that the latter gave him introductions to people in Lucknow . The month in Madras had been useful in gaining an intro from the Governor, George Macartney, to the Governor General, Warren Hastings. That, in any case, is the documented story but we must not forget that, by 1784, Zoffany was nearly 50, a Royal Academician, no less and painter to George III, so I would think the Macartney introduction was just by the way. Anyhow his acquaintance with the Governor General resulted in a number of commissions in Calcutta including some from Hastings himself.

18th Century Lucknow

Hastings paid a farewell visit to Lucknow in the spring of 1784 and Zoffany joined him in June of that year. The Kingdom of Oudh (in reality a Nawabi or Viceroyship for the Moghul Emperor), with Lucknow as the capital, had been founded in about 1725. The Nawabs paid only nominal allegiance to the Emperor but their independence was curtailed in 1764 when the ruling Nawab, Shuja ud Dowla, tried conclusions with the British in the Battle of Buxar. The British retained Shuja ud Dowlah as Nawab but extracted annual tribute from him and also posted a Resident at Lucknow. The Nawab retained his powers within Oudh but had to defer to the British in matters of defence and also had to pay for an army they maintained in Lucknow for his "protection". The ruling Nawab in 1784 was Asoph ud Dowla who had succeeded Shuja in 1775.

Asoph ud Dowla, dissolute and indulgent, was given to the pleasures of the table and of the bedstead, with a reported harem 1500 strong. In spite of which he did not father an offspring and the successor to the throne was Vizier Ali (whom we have already met, see post below on Benares), an adopted son. Asoph's 22 year reign was one of extravagance and downright decadence but it was also a period in which he encouraged the arts and the famous pehle aap (after you) culture of Lucknow may be said to date from his time. He aslo had a court of hangers-on, unusually, many of them British and European with the most notable being Claude Martin.

A description of the character of the Nawab by Louis Ferdinand Smith from the Asiatic Register 1804 : " He is mild in manners, generous to extravagance, affably polite and engaging in his conduct; but he has not great mental powers, though his heart is good. He is fond of lavishng his treasures on gardens, palaces, horses, elephants and, above all, on fine European gems, lustres, mirrors, and all sorts of European manufactures, more especially English, from a 2 d deal board painting of ducks and drakes to elegant paintings of a Lorraine or a Zoffany, and from a dirty little paper lantern to mirrors and lustres which cost up to Pounds 3000 each".



Asoph ud Dowla (Watercolour said to be after Zoffany)

Claude Martin (1735 - 1800)

When it comes to judging Claude Martin I am reminded of the story of the cabaret master (or presenter) who quoted Shakespeare : "Ladies and Gentleman, what you are going to see is neither good nor bad; only thinking makes it so". He was born near Lyon, enlisted as a soldier with the French East India Company in 1751 and arrived in Pondicherry shortly thereafter. There is a family anecdote about how, when news of his enlisting reached home, his stepmother ran to the depot to bring him back but Martin refused, saying he wanted to go and make his fortune in a foreign country. At which, she boxed his ears, saying in tears : "Go, you obstinate one, but don't ever come back except in a carriage", and gave him a purse of 24 coins.


Claude Martin by Francesco Renaldi

Well, seek his fortune Martin did but only after changing sides from the French to the British in about 1760. By this time the French were on their last legs in India and our soldier of fortune, by a side-ways shuffling of the feet as it were, switched his allegiance. He did serve his new masters well and earned their confidence, seeing action in a number of skirmishes with local rulers both in South India and in Bengal, including Buxar in 1764. After a period spent on the Indian Survey under James Rennell, Martin went back to soldiering, this time to quell some trouble from the Bhutanese on the border. That he was guilty of looting the treasury in Bhutan is a charge often levelled at Martin but that is not the only way he enriched himself. By the early 1770's Martin was permanently established in Lucknow, first as Surveyor under Rennell and later as Superintendent of the Arsenal. And when Asoph ud Dowla acceded to the throne in 1775, Martin also managed to worm his way into the Nawab's inner circle of Europeans.

The Nawab's Inner Circle


Probably the foremost among the inner circle of Asoph ud Dowla was Martin. As the Nawab was fond of things European, chandeliers, sculpture, china, objets de art Martin saw to it that he became purveyor in chief to Asoph. This was perhaps the principal means of his personal enrichment. But there were other facets to Martin as well, such as his endowment of three schools in his name, the La Martiniere in Lucknow, Calcutta and Lyon. The two in India are certainly among the best boarding schools in the country to this day. The one in Lucknow is housed in Constantia, the palatial home Martin had built for himself.



La Martiniere in Lucknow

But there were other notable Europeans as well in the circle of Asoph ud Dowla. Firstly, Col John Mordaunt, Chief of the Nawab's Bodyguard and the illegitimate son of the 4th Earl of Peterborough. Schooling had not done much for his three R's as is clear from a letter he wrote to his friend : "You may kip the hos as long as you lik". Unfitted as he was for a learned or respectable profession, a cadetship in the East India Company was secured for him. A t some point in time in India, Mordaunt became an ADC to Hastings and thus had the opportunity to be presented once to Asoph ud Dowla. It is believed that that is how he entered the Nawab's service. More than a head of the household bodyguard, he seems to have been a social secretary and master of ceremonies (and revelries) to Asoph ud Dowla. The Nawab regarded Mordaunt as a friend, not surprising if the accounts of the low tastes of the two men are to be believed.

There were two other intimates of the Nawab, Col Antoine Polier and John Wombwell, both servants of the East India Company in Lucknow. Polier was French but born in Switzerland in 1741. He had been Chief Engineer in Calcutta at one time but by about 1780 had become resident architect in Lucknow. And Wombwell was a man from Yorkshire, employed as the Company's Accountant n Lucknow. Here is a picture by Zoffany of the friends at ease, one among the fine Rogues' Galleries the artist excelled in painting :



At Ease : Polier, Martin & Wombwell (Zoffany in the Background) : Zoffany 1786 - 87

Col Antoine Polir & Friends : Zoffany 1786 - 87

I love this picture, almost as much as I do the Cock Match and some of Zoffany's other masterpieces (like the Tribuna and the Academicians). Firstly, it is big, some 55 x 72 inches. Next, it shows a group of friends at their ease, lounging around. The scene is said to be Polier's house. Claud Martin is the focus of the picture and he is seen explaining to Wombwell, to his left, a set of plans believed to be those of the house he constructed for himself (now the La Martiniere school in Lucknow). Don't fail to note the Indian servant holding up the plans for inspection. To the left is Col Antoine Polier inspecting some fruits or other produce, presumably from his gardens, being proffered by his servants. And don't fail to note that the servant at extreme left has elephantiasis of the leg!

This oil is in the Victoria Memorial collection in Calcutta, purchased and presented to it, if I remember right, by Lord Curzon.

Zoffany has put himself,as was his wont, into the picture. He is sketching in the background but facing us and it looks as though he has three of his other paintings on the wall. Then the monkey next to him, holding aloft a banana. Truly, a depiction of friends at ease and very topical too.

The author Rosie Llewellyn Jones, rightly celebrated for her triad of wonderful books on Nawabi Lucknow, suggests in an article that Zoffany has put the monkey in the picture to illustrate the European plundering the riches of Oudh or of the East. Maybe, on the other hand, maybe not. Why couldn't the monkey have been simply a pet monkey kept by Polier? Zoffany was not above making a point or two or above putting a little joke into his paintings but I wonder if, given his times and his friendships with the subjects of the pic, this "allegory" came to his mind.

Back to the Cock Match & the Dramatis Personae



The context to the picture out of the way, it is time to look at the content. Firstly, this is another shot of the engraving I own but both this pic and the earlier one have been tricked up on Picasa, each according to my whim of the moment (the real difference is that the former was shot by me in artificial light and this one here by Shivakumar in the open in afternoon light, the former is good for enlarging and seeing the detail, the one immediately above for an idea of the engraving as it actually looks).

Alright, what have we here, what is going on in the picture? First, it is a busy scene, a crowded scene. And it is a big engraving (the original oil at the Tate is even larger). Asoph ud Dowla loved cock fights, elephant fights and perhaps all forms of sport in which he did not have to do any of the work. And the Europeans were not averse to a bit of "good, clean, innocent" fun in this way, being used to cock fights in their own countries.

The occasion is a cock match between the birds of Mordaunt and those belonging to the Nawab. Hastings was witness to such a match on his arrival in Lucknow in April 1784 and is believed to have asked Zoffany to record another such occasion for him. The picture that Zoffany drew is sheer drama and comic theatre.

In this disorderly and somewhat unruly scene, we can make out the Nawab and Col Mordaunt quite clearly. The rotund, roly poly figure of Asoph ud Dowla is moving, arms outstretched in greeting, towards Mordaunt who is portrayed sauntering into the arena in his shirtsleeves, striking a nonchalant, casual posture. I can almost hear the two of them uttering endearing but foul imprecations and lewd entreaties to each other, such banter being known to be a feature of their relationship.

The European contingent is seated, or standing, mostly under a small awning to the right of the drawing, a sort of dress circle for the privileged. Many of them affect languid airs, seemingly unconcerned with the proceedings and intent on conversation among themselves. To the extreme right of the picture, there is a group of three Europeans in animated discussion about the birds that two of them are holding. The fat Englishman in the group, sitting down, is Lt Golding. Next to him, bird in hand, is Robert Gregory, an assistant at the Lucknow Residency who had already been warned by his father that if he continued to gamble on cock fights he would be cut off from the inheritance. As luck would have it, years later, when Gregory Senior was walking past a shopfront in the Strand he chanced to see the Earlom engraving of the Cock Match in the shop window, recognised his son and promptly cut him off from his will with the entire estate going to a younger son. Candid canvas!!

The usual suspects are all there. Claud Martin, prominent in the red coat, is sitting on a Diwan talking to Trevor (later Sir Trevor) Wheeler, an assistant at the Residency. Antoine Polier (clean shaven in this pic), in a brown coat, is seen standing at the left of the Dress Circle. Sitting in front of him, holding a Hooka, is John Wombwell. Zoffany, as he often had a habit of doing, has put himself in the picture, he has his right arm over the back of his chair, has turned round to face us, sketching pencil poised at the ready in his right hand. Standing with hand on Zoffany's shoulder is Ozias Humphrey, another artist who was in Lucknow at the time.

Is that all ? Don't fail to note the courtiers, the servants and the Nautch girls or dancers in the left background all perfectly delineated. And middle of the picture, just below the awning for the Europeans, is a Hindu pederast fondling a Muslim boy in skull cap, much to the indignation of a lunging courtier who is being restrained by another man. And lots of other detail and caricaturing of interest, just click and enlarge to see for yourself.

I recently came across a book on the Indian influence in British art of the 18th and 19th centuries. The two authors of the book say that the vacant place on the Diwan next to the one that the Nawab has just vacated (to greet Mordaunt) could have been intended by Zoffany to suggest the presence of Hastings who, given the inquisition against him in England at the time, could not be actually shown to be taking part in such friviolous proceedings. A conclusion too easily, and temptingly, reached it seems to me. What about a seat then for Col Mordaunt, it is more likely the vacant place was meant for him. I am not quibbling for the sake of it but I wonder how right it is to impute notions and constructs when writing history or art history. I, however, agree with the authors when they say "the drawing is sheer comic drama, a kind of mock battle between Europe and Asia fought by chickens representing the two worlds .... so curiously conjoined in Oudh".

Zoffany's Cock Match : The Daylesford & Ashwick Versions

Now, the picture or the engraving of the Cock Match that you see on this post or, for that matter, will see anywhere else is what is known as the Daylesford version, after the place where Warren Hastings lived on his return from India. We already saw that Hastings had commissioned Zoffany to do an oil of the cockfight at Lucknow and the artist did draw one and ship it to Hastings. The ship was wrecked en route to England, or so the story goes, and the painting did not reach Hastings. When, on his return to England, Zoffany came to know of the loss he shrugged it off, saying that the lost picture would do for Neptune's gallery : "that ancient collector but sorry connoisseur", and proceeded to do another one for Hastings. Luckily he had his original sketch with him and was able to work up a full fledged drawing. So, that is the Daylesford or Hastings version and the actual oil now hangs in the Tate Gallery.

Now, there are records of two other versions of the Cock Match which Zoffany had done for the Nawab. The Nawab had perhaps seen the sketch and wanted a drawing for himself or equally, because artists like Zoffany would want to milk the maximum out of any sketch, the artist put the idea into his head. Why two copies were ordered is very much a question to be asked but it seems there were two at Lucknow. One of them, which came to be known as the Ashwick version, was gifted by Asoph ud Dowla's successor, Ghauzi-ud-din Hyder, to Richard Strachey, Resident at Lucknow in 1815 - 17. This was brought to England and became the Ashwick version after the place in Somerset where Strachey lived. Here, below, is the Ashwick version :



Cock Match : Ashwick Version

Almost identical to the Daylesford one but with a lightly sketched in or reduced cast of Extras. But, in essence, it is the same Cock Match, the Firanghis are all there, as is our friend the pederast and the indignant courtier. So, there were two versions with the Nawab in Lucknow of which one, the Ashwick above, was given to Strachey (a grand uncle of Lytton Strachey)in 1817. The other version remained in Lucknow until the Mutiny of 1857 when it was presumed destroyed. But there is enough evidence in print, including by Fanny Parkes, of the existence Ashwick and Lucknow versions. The Ashwick version, as far as I know, last came to notice at a 1915 auction in Sotheby's when it was bought by an unknown buyer. I have no idea if it changed hands since then or, even, if it still exists.

One puzzling thing is, of course, why would the Nawab want two copies of the same painting bu that is not so problematic as the next question (after all the Nawab may have liked the picture sufficiently to want two copies or replicas). And that next puzzle is why the historians and the art historians have gone totally silent about this version. Out of sight is out of mind perhaps as, to the extent I know, no one has sighted the Ashwick for many years but its authenticity is very much in doubt now (at least to me, the figures don't look like Zoffanys, in fact the drawing seems to be a copy by someone else).

Zoffany left India after six years, after spending over half of his time there in Lucknow and the richer by about Pounds 50 thousand (probably about 3 to 5 Million Pounds in today's money).

The Tribuna of the Uffizi


We need to jump farther back in time to discuss the Tribuna of the Uffizi. This, in one way of looking at the subject, could have been a separate post. But, I wanted to out with it all in one post, so that we have something to compare with the Cock Match and to see a little more of Zoffany's output. Also, the subject of Zoffany and the Tribuna is topical as I will explain at the end.

Mind you, while I know a little bit about the Cock Match I know even less about the Tribuna but I was lucky to find a book which is available on the Internet Archive : Johann Zoffany R.A by G.C.Williamson, published in about 1900. This plus what I knew, supplemented by an excellent key I found on a site on the Net : The Gentlemanly Hang is what I write below.

First, the arresting, spellbinding picture drawn by Zoffany :



The Tribuna of the Uffizi : Zoffany 1771 - 72

Very briefly, Zoffany decided in about early 1771 to visit Italy. This was because an assignment to accompany Captain Cook on his voyage to the South Seas fell through due to no fault of the artist. When Zoffany let his intention to visit Italy be known, came a Royal request that he make a sketch of the gallery in Florence, should he visit that city. It was the wish of Quenn Charlotte and George III seems to have endorsed the idea. Zoffany was to be paid the expenses of the journey and Pounds 300 a year for the length of his visit. This sort of sponsorship and Royal commission was exactly what the artist was looking for and he made good use of the latter, as we shall see.

Zoffany duly reached Florence and, given the Royal commission in his pocket, was presented at court and offered all assistance and facility by the Grand Duke of Tuscany to produce the picture. Ever the thrusting upstart emigre from Europe, Zoffany hardly needed such encouragement because, styling himself the Queen's painter, he threw his weight about at the gallery or the Tribuna as it is called, commandeering the place, restricting public access at times and ordering not only the hang to be changed but insisting that pictures and sculpture housed elsewhere be brought in and displayed in the gallery for the purpose of his composition.

It was good that he did so, because he seems to have given his all to the composition and making of the drawing and the result is a riveting, stunning view, a piece for endless conversation. Here is the key I found on the Net and, rather than belabour this post with my second hand accounts of the English grandees in the picture, I will let you work the details out with this key :



The Key to the Tribuna of the Uffizi

Still, there are a few notable things to say. Firstly, that Zoffany is again in the picture (No : 4 in the Key), he is in the left background, head peeping out from behind a picture he is holding out for inspection by the small group that surrounds him. Zoffany is, of course, trying to interest the group in the picture which is a Raphael, perhaps more correctly Raffael, of the Madonna and Child. Zoffany apparently bought this Raphael for a nominal price and is trying to sell it. And No : 1 in the key, the man in the brown coat who is facing Zoffany is George Nassau Clavering-Cowper, the 3rd Earl Cowper who bought this picture.

George, the 3rd Earl Cowper (1738 - 89) was a man who arrived in Italy on the customary Grand Tour and never left it. Even aftr he succeeded to the Earldom and its large estate, he continued to live, and finally to die, in Italy. Zoffany also painted a portrait of the Earl and I put a replica or copy of it below, in this picture he is a jaunty, dashing, florid faced grandee doffing his cocked hat to someone :



Jaunty Grandee : George, 3rd Earl Cowper ( drawing after Zoffany)

Now, the Earl is said to have paid a high price for this Raphael and also endowed an annuity of a Hundred Pounds a year on Zoffany for life, which the artist drew for nearly 40 years. It is said to be a genuine Raphael but public opinion wasn't so unanimous apparently. I scarcely associated the following number in the Pirates of Penzance with the Zoffany picture until I read the Williamson book linked above :

I can tell a genuine Raphael from Gerard Dow's or Zoffany's
I know the Croaking Chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes

Gilbert & Sullivan

The scoundrel in Zoffany also made a tidy packet out of the desire of the prominent Englishmen visitin or residing in Florence to appear in the picture. He would paint them in on request, only to rub them out of the picture as soon as they had left Florence. And if any of the visitors should give him offence, he had his revenge by scrubbing the offender out of the picture!

All this was to no avail, for when Zoffany got back to England after an extended trip to Vienna the King and Queen were not exactly pleased with the picture. For one thing, the artist got back to England only in 1778, after a long interval of 7 years plus. Secondly, the Royals thought the picture too crowded and with some perssons included in it who were not exactly very popular at court. Finally the Queen is said to have bought the painting after some years, paying 600 Guineas for it, far less than the 3000 that Zoffany had hoped for. It was never hung in the Queen's chambers but is now getting a revival.

The Conversation Piece : An Exhibition in the UK Based on Zoffany's Drawings

And that is what makes Zoffany topical, as I discovered to my surprise and pleasure when Googling around for stuff on the Tribuna. The Royal Collection is holding an exhibition on the theme of the Conversation Piece, centred around the drawings of Johann Zoffany. The exhibition is, first, at Holyrood House, Edinburgh from the 27th March to the 30th September and, next, from 30th Oct to Fbe 2010 in London at the Buckingham Palace. I will certainly make it a point to catch the Tribuna at the Exhibition (the Cock Match won't be there I am afraid, unless they decide to include borrowed exhibits from the Tate), perhaps in London. One picture I would specially like to see is the Zoffany below, of Charles Towneley and Friends, painted in 1783 just before the artist left for India. I like Zoffany's use of the light in this picture, the way he lets it fall on the subjects of the drawing :



Charles Towneley & Friends : Zoffany

Why a post on Zoffany, artist and upstart scoundrel rolled into one. He is the master of the conversation piece, a master of detail and of irreverence, not above putting in a subtle or not so subtle joke when composing his masterpieces. Consider the vignette in the Tribuna of Zoffany selling a pic (pup?) to the Earl, remember that his drawings are dotted about with the odd pederast or a black monkey or a morally outraged courtier or a group of poker faced Royal Academicians staring critically at nude models. Above all, see the delineation of features, maybe of character too, in his paintings and the stunning detail in the Tribuna where you can even see the fluting and whorls on the picture frames.

To really appreciate the Tribuna, go to this page of the Royal Collection to see the zoomable image. That is, if you don't plan to see the exhibition or, perhaps, even if you do.

To, see a similar zoomable image of the Academicians at the Royal Academy, in all its depth and dimension, go to this page of the Royal Collection (if you do, you will end up seeing the exhibition, no matter what you think now).

To learn what was going on in 18th Century Nawabi Lucknow there are many period books as well as historical accounts, but get yourself the three absorbing books on the theme written by Rosie Llewellyn Jones which are of the historical account variety :

1. A Fatal Friendship
2. An Ingenious Man (the Life of Claud Martin)
2. Engaging Scoundrels

To really dive into Zoffany's life and work, also to understand the genre of Conversation Pieces get yourself the Exhibition Catalogue. I have already ordered my copy.



Zoffany : Self Portrait