SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1968777737> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 50 of 50 with 100 items per page.

W1968777737 endingPage "216" @default.
W1968777737 startingPage "205" @default.
W1968777737 abstract "Previous articleNext article FreeChinnery and Houqua: Questions of AttributionJosephine C. DobkinJosephine C. DobkinResearch Assistant, Department of European Paintings, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreA small, full-length portrait of an elderly Chinese gentleman in the robes of a public official, seated with crossed legs on a red divan, was bequeathed to The Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1941 by the architect and collector W. Gedney Beatty (1869–1941) (Figure 1). The balance of his bequest, 366 books by or on Vitruvius, went to the Department of Prints.1 The lone painting, then titled A Chinese Merchant and thought to be by the English artist George Chinnery (1774–1852), was assigned to the American Wing.2 Undoubtedly this was done because of the strong American interest in Chinese goods, for which, from the early days of the China trade until the Civil War, New York had been the principal port of entry.3 The sitter for the portrait was later identified as Houqua II (Wu Bingjian, 1769–1843),4 also spelled Hoqua or Howqua5 (the syllable “qua” was added to Chinese names as a mark of respect by Europeans in Canton).6 While the identification of the sitter is correct, the Museum’s painting cannot be accepted as the work of Chinnery.71. Style of George Chinnery (English, 1774–1852), possibly by Esther Speakman (American, 1823–1875). Houqua. If by Speakman, the painting would date to 1843. Oil on canvas, 25 × 18⅝ in. (63.5 × 47.3 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of W. Gedney Beatty, 1941 (41.160.405). Photograph: Juan Trujillo, The Photograph Studio, MMARevered for his honesty by British and American businessmen in the China trade, the melancholy-looking Houqua was not just a hong merchant; he was the leader of the cohong, the powerful guild of Chinese traders authorized by their government to oversee the business dealings of Western merchants at Canton (Guangzhou), the only port open to foreigners after 1757 until the opening of the treaty ports in 1842.8 Hong merchants paid large sums for the privilege of selling silk and tea to Westerners in exchange for opium from India and Turkey. They controlled all foreign trade with the port, earning millions of dollars in revenue annually.9 In 1834 Houqua’s personal wealth was estimated at twenty-six million dollars, and his villa and gardens were famous for their beauty. A staff member of the British embassy recalled a visit to his mansion in 1817: “Howqua’s house, though not yet finished, was on a scale of magnificence worthy of his fortune.”10The Western traders believed Houqua to be fair, friendly, intelligent, and generous.11 He offered assistance to the foreign merchants who “found themselves financially embarrassed.”12 In 1839, when the emperor ordered trade halted and opium destroyed during the first Opium War (1839–42), Houqua was put in charge of the burning and was held in chains by the Chinese authorities until the Westerners destroyed their stocks.13 He paid a fine out of his own pocket to save Canton from bombardment by the British.14 After Houqua’s death in 1843, a clipper ship was named after him; a relative of the China trader Benjamin R. C. Low composed a memorial poem dedicated to him;15 and his wax effigy was displayed for years at Madame Tussaud’s in London.16 Houqua’s appearance is further documented by a small watercolor-on-ivory portrait head in the Museum’s collection signed by the Chinese artist Tingqua (Guan Lianchang, born ca. 1809; active 1840–70) (Figure 2).2. Tingqua (Chinese, born ca. 1809; active 1840–70). Portrait of Houqua, signed, ca. 1840. Watercolor on ivory, 6¾ × 4½ in. (17.1 × 11.4 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Mrs. John de Peyster Douw, 1966 (66.109). Photograph: Juan Trujillo, The Photograph Studio, MMAThe oil painting of Houqua is traditionally associated with Chinnery, who was born in London and was the son of an amateur artist. In 1791, when he was seventeen, he first exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts with Portrait of His Father and continued to show portrait miniatures, small whole-lengths and portraits in oil and crayon as well as in pencil, and finally watercolors and landscapes, until 1846. In 1797 he moved to Dublin, where he gained Irish patrons and married Marianne Vigne. When the marriage proved too constraining for Chinnery, a colorful and eccentric character, he abandoned his wife and two children and sailed for Madras (Chennai) in 1802.17 Sketching and painting vibrant scenes of the people and country, he remained in India until 1825, when he fled to escape not only his creditors but also his wife and family, who had joined him when he moved later from Madras to Calcutta (Kolkata). He then left for Macao, just downriver from the major trading center of Canton.18 He lived there until his death in 1852 but paid no visits to Canton after 1832.19 Given his propensity for accurate likenesses and his quick wit, Chinnery became friends with American and British traders. According to a contemporary, “at Canton he became a general favorite, his anecdotes of Indian life, his powers of description, his eccentricities, made him a much-sought-for guest.”20There is only one painting of Houqua that is assuredly by Chinnery, and it belongs to the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) (Figure 3). The portrait, with that of another merchant, Mouqua (Figure 4), was commissioned about 1827 by W. H. Chicheley Plowden, president of the East India Company in Canton, who first returned to England in 1830, presumably taking the pictures with him.21 The date of Plowden’s portrait of Houqua can be construed from a preliminary drawing on which Chinnery inscribed in shorthand “December 26th [18]27. Canton”22 (Figure 5). Chinnery’s oil shows a Chinese man of indeterminate age. He has a wistful expression, high, wide forehead, and wispy mustache and is seated with legs crossed in a Western pose, slightly turned toward the viewer. On the right is a column with a decorated base. The furnishings and accoutrements are those of a wealthy Chinese man: elegant tables, a tasseled hanging lantern, a delicate porcelain teacup, a spittoon, and on the high table at his elbow a red silk hat with a finial of opaque lapis lazuli denoting a public official of the fourth grade.23 Through the tall window or door behind Houqua is a glimpse of his gardens with a distant temple set against a stormy sky. The picture is atmospherically lit so that the head, fur edgings of the sleeves and robe, soles of the shoes, spittoon, teacup, and sunset emerge from the shadows. Houqua wears a calf-length surcoat of blue-black satin lined with white fur and with an embroidered phoenix rank badge on the chest, light blue satin trousers, and black satin boots with white felted paper soles.24 Houqua, with elegantly attenuated wrists, is fingering a necklace of semiprecious stones.3. George Chinnery. Houqua, ca. 1828. Oil on canvas, 24½ × 18¾ in. (62.2 × 47.6 cm). Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd. Photograph: Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd.4. George Chinnery. Mouqua, ca. 1828. Oil on canvas, 24½ × 18¾ in. (62.2 × 47.6 cm). Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd. Photograph: Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd.5. George Chinnery. Houqua, 1827. Pen and ink on paper, dimensions unknown. Location unknownThe Metropolitan Museum’s Houqua (Figure 1) is one of many variants of a different composition held in museums and private collections in the eastern United States, Great Britain, and Ireland. They were brought home as souvenirs of their association with the great merchant by traders such as John Perkins Cushing, Nathan Dunn, John M. and Robert Bennet Forbes, Augustine Heard, Samuel Wadsworth Russell, and Benjamin Chew Wilcocks, many of whom made fortunes in the opium trade.25 The versions and copies, all showing a frontal figure and virtually identical in size, differ significantly in quality and detail from the Hong Kong picture (see appendix). On examination of the originals or photographs of eight such paintings, none contains the fine highlights or painterly treatment of the fur edging of the robe and soles of the shoes found in the HSBC work; the superbly painted teacup is not in evidence, and the pose is less refined.26 In these iterations, including the one owned by the Metropolitan, Houqua is seated on a red divan rather than a wood armchair and is framed by an octagonal window. A pilaster is in the background, and a small, low table perches on the divan. An incense burner not present in the Hong Kong picture sits on a pedestal behind him. He wears striped rather than plain trousers and more strings of beads. Not all of the faces resemble the Hong Kong Houqua; in some cases he has acquired a faint beard and has aged significantly. Given the wide variation, it is unlikely that all of his portraits were created during his lifetime.27Most of the small, frontal full-lengths were assumed to be by Chinnery in the mid-nineteenth century, but the twentieth century has seen much conjecture about their authorship. Chinnery did not replicate his work. He rarely signed his paintings, though some of his pen-and-ink and pencil sketches are initialed and dated.28 He was apt to add notes to his drawings in his own complicated shorthand, which has stood in for a signature.29 The full-lengths of Houqua are all about 25 by 18⅝ inches. In writing about them, Chinnery expert Patrick Conner explains that “problems of attribution become acute. The once-cherished notion that Chinnery’s portraits are to be distinguished from Chinese work on grounds of ‘quality’ is inadequate, for the latter is often highly accomplished by any standards.”30 For Albert Ten Eyck Gardner, writing in 1953, “few of these paintings would seem to be done in Chinnery’s characteristic style.” He concluded that “almost all of them would appear to be painted by Chinese artists.”31Chinese painting for export was a particular genre developed to satisfy the taste of Westerners doing business in Canton in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as they experienced local life and customs.32 While Chinnery was deftly drawing street scenes, animals, and marine views as well as painting portraits, flourishing local artists provided him with competition. The principal Cantonese artist in these endeavors was Tingqua’s older brother Lamqua (Guan Zuolin, 1801–1860), who was active from 1825 to 1860, a period coinciding with Chinnery’s stay. He was reportedly a pupil of Chinnery’s though the latter emphatically denied the claim.33 Lamqua undercut Chinnery by charging much lower rates.34 It was not uncommon for a Western trader to have his portrait painted by Chinnery and then copied by Lamqua.35 A contemporary British account describes him: “There resides at Macao a singular character in the person of a portrait painter, a Chinese, of the name of Lamqua . . . he shews [sic] a wonderful degree of talent in his pictures, which are executed altogether after the European style.”36 Another author notes that the building in which he painted included a workshop on the first floor, where eight to ten assistants toiled, drawing Chinese landscapes, painting miniatures, and copying European prints. On the top floor was Lamqua’s studio, “a small unornamented room lighted by a skylight. . . . The whole wainscot is covered with the small portraits of the sitters.” The writer continues, “Although he has, in general, more portraits to paint than he can well accomplish, and finishes them with expedition, he is considered to make no more by his profession than about £500 a year.”37 Lamqua developed a fluent style and, like Chinnery, added vivid flashes of color at the final stages of his work.38Lamqua purportedly never left China but was represented at the Royal Academy in 1835 and 1845. He exhibited in New York in 1841 and in Philadelphia in 1851 and 1860. At the Boston Athenaeum in 1850,39 five Lamqua portraits of Chinese merchants, including one of Houqua, were displayed, all brought to New England by Augustine Heard (1785–1868).40 The Houqua portrait could be the waist-length likeness attributed to Lamqua that is in the Ipswich Public Library, Massachusetts.41 One expert effused that those five works were “some of the finest portraits ever done of the Chinese merchants who dealt with Westerners. The Houqua portrait is equal in quality to a portrait by the most academic American painter of the period.”42 Conner agrees that such portraits “attest to the remarkable talents of the Chinese artist in adopting not only Western techniques of manipulating paint, but also Western conventions.”43 Other works attributed to Lamqua are good copies of Chinnery’s Portrait of a Tanka Boatwoman and a half-length self-portrait of about 1850 (Figure 6) as well as a skillful version of Chinnery’s Mouqua (Figure 7), all of which may attest to his talent as a painter.44 It should be noted that versions of Houqua’s portrait have been attributed to Lamqua on limited, if any, evidence.6. Lamqua. George Chinnery, ca. 1850. Oil on canvas, 9¾ × 7½ in. (24.7 × 19 cm). Hong Kong Museum of Art Collection (AH 1991-0003). Photograph: Hong Kong Museum of Art7. Attributed to Lamqua (Chinese, 1801–1860). Mouqua, ca. 1828–40. Oil on canvas, 24 × 18⅝ in. (60.8 × 47.3 cm). Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts (M20450). Photograph: Peabody Essex MuseumIn order to have a standard against which to judge who may have painted those Houqua portraits, we examined the Metropolitan Museum’s Chinnery self-portrait from the collection of B. C. Wilcocks (1776–1845) (Figure 8).45 A Philadelphia trader who served as the United States consul in China in 1812, Wilcocks was a great friend of the artist’s in Canton, and Chinnery painted him in a splendid small full-length, signed and dated 1828 (Figure 9). The Museum’s Chinnery self-portrait underwent infrared reflectography prior to its publication in the 2009 catalogue of the Museum’s British paintings, and it was discovered that the artist made a careful preparatory pencil sketch on the canvas before applying paint.46 With the cooperation of the Department of Paintings Conservation, it was decided to submit the Metropolitan’s Houqua to X-radiography. Wilcocks also owned a Houqua portrait that remained in his immediate family until it was bequeathed to the Philadelphia Maritime Museum (Independence Seaport Museum) in 1988 (Figure 10). In light of the Wilcocks connection, this painting was X-rayed as well to find out if any of Chinnery’s trademark underdrawing might be discovered. The results were largely negative.8. George Chinnery. Self-Portrait, ca. 1828. Oil on canvas, 8⅝ × 7¼ in. (21.9 × 18.4 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1943 (43.132.4). Photograph: Juan Trujillo, The Photograph Studio, MMA9. George Chinnery. Benjamin Chew Wilcocks, 1828. Oil on canvas, 28 × 18½ in. (71.1 × 47 cm). Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd. Photograph: Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd.10. Style of Chinnery (possibly by him). Houqua, ca. 1825. Oil on canvas, 26 × 19 in. (66 × 48.3 cm). Independence Seaport Museum, Philadelphia (88.10). Photograph: Independence Seaport MuseumMetropolitan Museum conservator Dorothy Mahon shared her expertise in assessing these results.47 She observed that the canvas used for the Metropolitan’s painting is typical of an early nineteenth-century American prepared and stretched canvas. It bears a stencil on the back (Figure 11), indicating that it came from Philadelphia, with the initials ES in ink.48 The practice of stenciling the backs of canvases in the United States started in New York about 1830 and spread to Boston and Philadelphia.49 At the time there was an active trade in prepared canvases and pigments between England, the United States, and China.50 Completed canvases were sent to the United States for stretching and framing.11. Replica of canvas maker’s mark of Ashton & Browning on the back of Figure 112. In the X-ray of the Independence Seaport’s Houqua painting, Mahon perceived signs of underdrawing in the face, lips, and hands, with possible pencil lines on the left foot that were then thickly painted up. No hint of underdrawing was found in the Metropolitan’s painting, and only two minor adjustments to the head and vase were discovered. This version seems to be by a different hand, with less freedom, softness of modeling, and spontaneity than are evident in the Independence Seaport Museum’s portrait. After being X-rayed, Wilcocks’s Houqua portrait was examined at the Independence Seaport Museum.51 Supporting the earlier findings, it was judged to be superior, with crisper details in the costume and livelier handling throughout. Of all the versions and variants studied, this one seems to be of the highest quality. On examination, a Houqua portrait at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (Figure 13) was found to be more similar to that of the Metropolitan, while the portrait at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts (Figure 15), attributed to Lamqua, revealed a less polished version of the Independence Seaport’s canvas. Nonetheless, the Independence Seaport Museum’s work looks to be painted by a more skillful hand than either the Metropolitan Museum or the Philadelphia Museum versions.52 On the back of the panel is a handwritten attribution to the American artist Thomas Sully (1783–1872).53 However, the original owner, Captain Charles Frederick Bradford, listed this portrait with that of another Chinese merchant in his inventory of works brought back from Asia.13. 14. 15. 16. 17. To further complicate the matter, Sully was commissioned to copy Wilcocks’s Houqua portrait, though his version has never been identified. Wilcocks was a patron of the arts as well as a friend and supporter of Sully, who had painted two bust-length portraits of his fellow Philadelphian in 1807.54 On April 11, 1828, Sully wrote in his journal that Wilcocks had just returned from Canton with a letter for him from “Chinnery the painter,” and that Wilcocks visited again on April 16, bringing art supplies from China. On April 27 he wrote: “Mr. Wilcocks left me the whole length of Houqua by Chinnery to be copied.” In his register Sully mentioned that he “received Chinnery’s Houqua from the Academy” and began a copy on August 28, 1828.55 Although Wilcocks had copies made for business acquaintances and members of his extended family, it is doubtful, in light of his close connections to Chinnery, that he would knowingly have kept for his personal collection a portrait of the great Houqua by a Chinese copyist.In researching the recently acquired portrait at the Philadelphia Museum, curator Carol Soltis of that institution has suggested that the painting may be by the Philadelphian Esther Speakman (1823–1875). The work bears a framer’s stencil identical to the Metropolitan’s and the initials ES, followed by the number 112.56 Little is known of Speakman, who painted and copied canvases in various genres for Wilcocks and other patrons. In 1843 she submitted eleven canvases to two exhibitions at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. Almost half of them were owned by Wilcocks, including a portrait of Houqua after Chinnery. She exhibited there again in 1850.57 Considering the “ES” and the canvas maker’s mark on the back of the Metropolitan Museum’s picture, as well as Speakman’s exhibition date of 1843, she could be the artist.It seems likely that Chinnery’s portrait of Houqua now in Hong Kong (see Figure 3) is later than the prototype of the divan portrait, as in the Metropolitan Museum painting. Wilcocks returned to Philadelphia in the spring of 1828 with his Houqua (see Figure 10), which included the red divan, and exhibited it in the same year. Plowden, whose more polished Chinnery commission is now owned by HSBC, first returned to England from Canton in 1830; from a second visit, he returned in 1834. Might Chinnery have painted the portrait owned by Wilcocks? The HSBC work is quite naturalistic and more Western than the more symmetrical, structured, formal and frontal variations. As to the question of whether any of the others could possibly be by Chinnery himself, it is not certain that any of them are by him or, for that matter, by Lamqua, Sully, or Speakman. We may safely use the term “style of” Chinnery, if only because so many of the pictures have long been associated with his name.AcknowledgmentsMy thanks go to Katharine Baetjer for her help and continuing interest in this project. Conservator Dorothy Mahon generously extended her time and expertise in examining the X-rays of the paintings. I am enormously grateful to Carol Soltis of the Philadelphia Museum of Art for sharing her research and steering me toward Thomas Sully’s register and journal. Without her insights, the American connection would have been less fully developed. Additional thanks go to Craig Bruns of the Independence Seaport Museum, and to Karina H. Corrigan, Kathryn Carey, and Eric Wolin, of the Peabody Essex Museum. Kamilah Foreman was of invaluable assistance in shaping my manuscript. I also extend my appreciation to Patrick Conner, Adrian Le Harivel, and Helen Swinnerton for their helpful comments.Notes1Archives, MMA.2Harry B. Wehle to Mr. Greenway, September 25, 1941, Archives, MMA.3Gardner 1953, p. 310.4Hummel 1943–44, vol. 2, p. 877.5Karina H. Corrigan, H. A. Crosby Forbes Curator at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts, confirmed that the correct spelling is “Houqua.”6Berry-Hill and Berry-Hill 1970, p. 47.7The Museum’s attribution was changed to “copy after Chinnery” and later “attributed to Chinnery.” Note on the catalogue card by J. L. Allen, February 1945.8Gardner 1953, p. 320. Hongs, or factories, were places of business on the Pearl River in Canton leased from the Chinese by foreign merchants and used for storing goods as well as for living quarters and office space. The American hong housed several trading firms and the United States consul. See Forbes 1996, p. 59n83.9Hunter 1911, p. 218.10Ellis 1818, p. 305.11Downs 1941, p. 94.12Loines 1953, p. 6.13Christman 1984, p. 89.14Gardner 1953, p. 315.15Loines 1953, p. 60.16Conner 1993, p. 175.17Strickland 1913, pp. 170–71.18Baetjer 2009, p. 226.19Conner 2007, p. 20. After 1832 the Chinese government severely restricted foreigners because of the opium trade, and the traders withdrew to Macao. Loines 1953, p. 7.20Hunter 1911, pp. 264–68.21Conner 2011, p. 50. Plowden came back briefly to Macao before returning to England in 1834.22See Conner 1993, p. 172, pl. 103.23Garrett 1990, p. 28.24Ibid., pp. 21, 29. The embroidered phoenix badge was an honorary distinction bestowed on hong merchants. See Berry-Hill and Berry-Hill 1970, p. 44.25Downs 1968, pp. 421–24, 434–35.26Conner (1993, p. 175) points out that although the sitter’s legs are crossed in the versions, “the pose is nearer to the full-frontal approach typical of Chinese ancestor portraits.”27Clunas 1984, p. 35.28Orange 1920, p. 90.29Conner 2011, p. 16.30Conner 1986, p. 53.31Gardner 1953, p. 312.32Conner 1993, p. 169.33Cunynghame 1844, vol. 2, p. 98.34Conner (1986, p. 54) notes that in the 1840–41 accounts of the trading company Jardine Matheson, the British trading company made payments to Lamqua for $34 and $60, and to Chinnery for $150 and $250.35Crossman 1972, p. 26, and Conner 1993, p. 170.36Cunynghame 1844, vol. 2, p. 97.37Downing 1838, vol. 2, pp. 91, 112, 114.38Conner 1996, p. 734.39Perkins and Gavin 1980, p. 89.40Ibid.; Crossman 1972, pp. 27–28.41Lamqua, Houqua, ca. 1840. Oil on canvas, 32¾ × 25¼ in.42Crossman 1972, p. 28.43Conner 1986, p. 55.44Conner 1999, pp. 46, 53. The Chinnery self-portrait is in the Peabody Essex Museum (M11510). Lamqua’s copy is in the Hong Kong Museum of Art (AH 1991–0003). The latter is dated ca. 1835, but the Peabody Essex’s dating of the original at about 1850 is more likely. Chinnery’s portrait of Mouqua was painted for Plowden about 1828. The version attributed to Lamqua at the Peabody Essex Museum (M20450) differs from it in background details.45The artist’s self-portraits are of diverse sizes and in various poses and media, having been painted or drawn at different stages of his life.46Baetjer 2009, pp. 266–67.47The examination occurred on July 17, 2010.48The canvas maker’s mark on the reverse states “ASHTON & BROWNING 204 Chest.[nut] St[reet]. PHILADA.” “ES/133” also appears in pen and ink. The firm of Ashton & Browning, which prepared the canvases, was at 204 Chestnut Street in Philadelphia from 1838 to 1841, and by 1843 had moved to 205 Chestnut Street, where it remained until 1844. Katlan 1992, pp. 412–13.49Katlan 1987, p. 7.50Conner 1999, p. 52.51On May 25, 2012, Craig Bruns, chief curator, Independence Seaport Museum; Carol Soltis, consulting curator at the Center for American Art, Philadelphia Museum of Art; and Katharine Baetjer, curator, Metropolitan Museum, joined me in a careful study of the painting, which we compared to the Metropolitan’s portrait by magnifying details of the latter work from the Museum’s website.52On July 30, 2012, the Peabody Essex Museum’s conservator Kathryn Carey provided this information and studied the portrait under black light; she found a negligible spot of overpainting in the sky and noted that the finish was original. She surmised that at an earlier date, probably in the 1970s or 1980s, the painting had been wax-mounted to Masonite board, and so there are no identifying canvas preparers’ marks in evidence.53“Portrait of Houqua/Painted by T. Sully/after/Chinnery” is written in yellow paint in modern-day block letters.54Hart 1909, p. 179, nos. 1870, 1871.55“Journal of Thomas Sully’s Activities May 1792–1793, 1799–December 1846; Includes Paintings Executed by Him, Financial Affairs, Visitors Received, Calls Made, Trip to England and France, 1837–38; Annual ‘Review of Concerns’ . . . Including Valuations of Work Done and a Financial Statement,” and “Register of Paintings Executed by Thomas Sully between 1801–1871; Complete List of All Miniatures, Oil Portraits and Other Paintings,” Microfilm reel N18, Thomas Sully Papers, 1792–1871, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., accessed April 27, 2012. Filmed from originals in the Manuscript Division, New York Public Library. Sully noted in his register that he had started “Houqua full-length in small—copy Wilcocks,” on August 28, 1828; completed it on September 13; and was charging $200. The dimensions were noted as 26 × 19 inches. The painting is not listed in Biddle and Fielding 1921. According to his journal, on January 15, 1829, Sully “sent home to Wilcocks his own portrait by Chinnery and my copy of Houqua.” On May 4, he “packed up Chinnery’s Houqua to go to Boston.” On May 10, Sully “packed the original picture and sent it to Ralston Compting, the copy put in a frame and sent to Wilcocks.”The reference to the academy must have been to the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, which in 1828 exhibited a Chinnery work, Portrait (full-length small) of Houqua, Hong Merchant of Canton (also titled Portrait of How-Qua), no. 145. It was exhibited there again in 1843, no. 88, as belonging to B. C. Wilcocks, and in 1854, as belonging to a Mrs. McMurtrie, whose husband was a patron of Sully’s. See Rutledge 1955, p. 48.56The stencil is no longer visible but has been documented.57Rutledge 1955, p. 211, no. 54.Appendix The following versions of the Houqua portrait were studied in person or from photographs. The list is not complete: other versions are unaccounted for.George Chinnery, Houqua, ca. 1828Ex coll.: W. H. Chicheley Plowden, Canton (ca. 1828); A. G. Stephen, Hong Kong (until 1924; bought for the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd.)Figure 3Attributed by the Independence Seaport Museum to Lamqua, HouquaEx coll.: Benjamin Chew Wilcocks, Philadelphia (by ca. 1825–d. 1845); his granddaughter, Mrs. Percy (Elizabeth Campbell) Madeira, Washington, D.C.; her niece, Mrs. Benjamin Brannan Reath II, Merion, Pennsylvania (by 1941–d. 1988; bequeathed to Philadelphia Maritime Museum, now Independence Seaport Museum)Figure 1012. Attributed by the National Gallery of Ireland to George Chinnery, HouquaOil on canvas, 25⅝ × 18½ in. (65.1 × 47 cm)National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin (NGI 785)Ex coll.: Sir Hugh Lane (until d. 1918; bequeathed to National Gallery of Ireland)Photograph: Courtesy National Gallery of Ireland13. Attributed by the Philadelphia Museum of Art to Esther Speakman after George Chinnery, Houqua, by 1843Oil on canvas, 24½ × 18⅞ in. (62.2 × 47.9 cm)Philadelphia Museum of Art, Gift of Anna I. Roberts, 2012 (2012-42-1)Photograph: Courtesy Philadelphia Museum of Art14. Attributed by private collection, United Kingdom, to Lamqua, HouquaOil on canvas, 24¼ × 19½ in. (61.6 × 49.5 cm)Ex coll.: Private collection, United KingdomPhotograph: Courtesy private collection15. Attributed by Peabody Essex Museum to Lamqua, HouquaOil on canvas, 25 × 19 in. (63.5 × 48.2 cm)Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts (M232280)Ex coll.: Captain Charles Frederick Bradford (by 1840); by descent to Rebecca B. Chase, Ann B. Mathias, and Charles E. Bradford (until 1990; donated to Peabody Essex Museum, [M23228])Photograph: Courtesy Peabody Essex Museum16. Attributed by private collection to Lamqua, HowquaOil on canvas, 25⅝ × 19¼ in. (65.1 × 48.9 cm)Ex coll.: Russell (19th century); private collectionPhotograph: Courtesy Martyn Gregory Gallery, London17. Attributed by Redwood Library and Athenaeum to George Chinnery, HouquaOil on canvas, 24½ × 18½ in. (62.3 × 47 cm)Redwood Library & Athenaeum, Newport, Rhode Island, Bequest of Violet Gordon King (Mrs. Ian McEwan) (RLC.PA.010)Ex col" @default.
W1968777737 created "2016-06-24" @default.
W1968777737 creator A5014857133 @default.
W1968777737 date "2013-04-01" @default.
W1968777737 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
W1968777737 title "Chinnery and Houqua: Questions of Attribution" @default.
W1968777737 cites W2032518442 @default.
W1968777737 cites W2797849642 @default.
W1968777737 doi "https://doi.org/10.1086/675323" @default.
W1968777737 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
W1968777737 type Work @default.
W1968777737 sameAs 1968777737 @default.
W1968777737 citedByCount "0" @default.
W1968777737 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W1968777737 hasAuthorship W1968777737A5014857133 @default.
W1968777737 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
W1968777737 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
W1968777737 hasConcept C143299363 @default.
W1968777737 hasConcept C153349607 @default.
W1968777737 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
W1968777737 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
W1968777737 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
W1968777737 hasConceptScore W1968777737C107038049 @default.
W1968777737 hasConceptScore W1968777737C142362112 @default.
W1968777737 hasConceptScore W1968777737C143299363 @default.
W1968777737 hasConceptScore W1968777737C153349607 @default.
W1968777737 hasConceptScore W1968777737C15744967 @default.
W1968777737 hasConceptScore W1968777737C52119013 @default.
W1968777737 hasConceptScore W1968777737C77805123 @default.
W1968777737 hasIssue "1" @default.
W1968777737 hasLocation W19687777371 @default.
W1968777737 hasOpenAccess W1968777737 @default.
W1968777737 hasPrimaryLocation W19687777371 @default.
W1968777737 hasRelatedWork W163049555 @default.
W1968777737 hasRelatedWork W1656273795 @default.
W1968777737 hasRelatedWork W169794994 @default.
W1968777737 hasRelatedWork W2275196185 @default.
W1968777737 hasRelatedWork W2461474427 @default.
W1968777737 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
W1968777737 hasRelatedWork W3193615524 @default.
W1968777737 hasRelatedWork W4312297714 @default.
W1968777737 hasRelatedWork W612963211 @default.
W1968777737 hasRelatedWork W643768068 @default.
W1968777737 hasVolume "48" @default.
W1968777737 isParatext "false" @default.
W1968777737 isRetracted "false" @default.
W1968777737 magId "1968777737" @default.
W1968777737 workType "article" @default.