Abstract During the closing years of the eighteenth century, minister and antiquary the Revd John Brand (1744–1806) undertook an extraordinary project of creating facsimile drawn copies of rare prints, with which to illustrate James Granger’s Biographical History of England. Between 1790 and 1800 Brand personally created over 400 drawn copies of portrait prints which can be identified through his own annotations, a manuscript catalogue, and the catalogue of his posthumous sale. This paper will examine Brand’s surviving works, his processes and the ways in which his drawings were shaped by his status as an antiquary, amateur artist, and print collector. During the late eighteenth century, John Brand (1744–1806) undertook an extraordinary project to create facsimile drawn copies of rare prints, with which to illustrate James Granger’s Biographical History of England. Today Brand is best remembered for a history of his native Newcastle and for his Observations on the Popular Antiquities of Great Britain, but during the 1790s he was an active member of a print collecting society that encouraged exchange between connoisseurs.1 Brand’s biographers have occasionally noted his print collecting, and the fact that that he was in the practice of extra-illustrating volumes in his extensive library with ‘portraits, drawn by himself in a style not inferior to the originals, of which, at the same time they were perfect imitations’.2 Following his death in 1806, Brand’s extra-illustrated Granger was dismantled to be sold at auction, the catalogue of which reveals the extent of his collecting and copying. Examination of this posthumous catalogue, Brand’s manuscript lists, and examples of his surviving drawings, shows that Brand created over 400 drawings after prints. This paper will explore Brand’s surviving works and his practice, and consider Brand’s drawings within the context of his antiquarian exercises; as the products of print collecting; and as the work of an amateur artist. John Brand was born in Newcastle in 1744 to Elizabeth Wheatley and Alexander Brand, a local clerk, and was educated at his local Royal Grammar School. After an apprenticeship as a cordwainer under his uncle Anthony Wheatley, he studied at Lincoln College, Oxford from where he graduated in 1775. Brand had already been ordained before obtaining his degree, and in 1774 he was employed as curate of Cramlington, and rector of St Mary-at-Hill, Northumberland. Despite his ties to the north, by 1784 Brand had moved to London and in 1786 he was formally appointed personal chaplain to the Dukes of Northumberland, first to Hugh Percy, 1st Duke of Northumberland (1714–1786), and then to his son Hugh Percy, 2nd Duke of Northumberland (1742–1817).3 In this capacity he spent much of the following twenty years travelling with his patron between the ducal seat in Northumberland and London residences at Syon and Northumberland House. Residence in London allowed Brand to expand his historical pursuits: having been a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London since 1778, Brand was elected Secretary in Residence in 1784, a post he would hold until his death. Undoubtedly, Brand’s interests lay firmly in the study of the past, a passion that diverted him from his pastoral duties on more than one occasion, leading him to be prosecuted for non-residence.4 His interest in antiquities, however, did not translate to the fastidious administration of the Society, the papers of which were reported to be in disorder following his secretaryship.5 One of Brand’s biographers characterizes him as ‘somewhat repulsive to strangers; but, on a closer acquaintance . . . remarkably easy and cheerful.’6 Other accounts of Brand’s character describe him as an eccentric figure, known to secrete funds in the pages of antiquarian texts, quick to take offence, but endlessly enthusiastic about literary and historical subjects.7 This enthusiasm for books and prints culminated in Brand assembling a valuable library and print collection. Cauldfield described his eccentric collecting practices: no part of the town however distant but he visited once a week, and seldom returned without being heavily laden with scarce books, and prints . . . as it would have been indecorous with his clerical character, to be continually traversing the streets with a bundle in his hand, he had pockets made sufficiently capacious to hold two vols each in folio; and for duodecimo’s it would be no exageration [sic] in stating the two would swallow three score.8 Despite these personal eccentricities and professional lapses, Brand’s publications prove him to have been a thorough and engaged antiquary. His own annotated copies of his publications, now held in the Bodleian Library, show continued attempts to update his works with subsequent information.9 It is clear from Brand’s diary and correspondence that until 1789 the upcoming publication of his History of Newcastle absorbed a large portion of his time; however, following its completion Brand was able to turn his mind to other pursuits.10 In 1789 and the early 1790s, notes in Brand’s account book show a marked increase in spending on books and prints.11 The contents of his library were sold in 1807, revealing a varied collection of antiquarian books, ranging from the study of history to cooking, from religious works to fishing.12 Brand’s biographers have already noted that he was an enthusiastic extra-illustrator and that he engaged in the practice of including his own copies of prints.13 This process can be seen in his treatment of Ralph Gardiner’s rare work England’s Grievance Discovered (1655) now in the Royal Library at Windsor.14 In Gardiner’s original volume there are twenty-two engravings illustrating the text. Although Brand’s volume includes the complete series of plates, in a handwritten inscription on the flyleaf he notes that he had seen another edition of the work in the Pepysian Library in Cambridge which contained a rare map of Newcastle by Wenceslaus Hollar (1607–1677).15 Brand records that the Pepysian map was damaged, and notes that he had located a loose impression of the map in Lord Stamford’s collection, from which he made a tracing on oiled paper, now inserted in the opening pages of the volume (Fig. 1).16 Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Map of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1800, pencil tracing on oiled paper, 408 × 520 mm, from Ralph Gardiner, Englands Grievance Discovered, in relation to the coal-trade (1655). Windsor, Royal Collection © 2017 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Fig. 1. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Map of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1800, pencil tracing on oiled paper, 408 × 520 mm, from Ralph Gardiner, Englands Grievance Discovered, in relation to the coal-trade (1655). Windsor, Royal Collection © 2017 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Brand’s process of creating substitute drawings of absent prints was not limited to occasional individual insertions. He used the technique extensively in his extra-illustrated copy of James Granger’s Biographical History, the contents of which can be gleaned from the sale catalogue published by William Richardson in 1807 and from Brand’s handwritten catalogue.17 Like many of his contemporaries, Brand was gripped by the eighteenth-century mania for collecting portrait prints with which to extra-illustrate Granger’s Biographical History, which dominated the portrait print market from its publication in 1769 until the early 1830s.18 Existing print collectors such as Horace Walpole (1717–1797) bemoaned the influx of buyers into their previously select group of print connoisseurs.19 The success of Granger’s publication led to a dramatic escalation of print prices and an increase in the number of buyers. Due to these factors, rare prints became even more elusive as they were snapped up by collectors able to foot the increasingly high bills.20 By the time Brand commenced the extra-illustration of his Granger in the early 1790s, he was twenty years too late, with many desirable prints being too scarce or too expensive for him to acquire. In response to this increasingly competitive print trade, a sizeable market emerged for engraved, etched, and stipple copies after otherwise unavailable prints.21 Publishers and printmakers such as Silvester Harding (1745–1809) and his son Edward (1776–1796) and William Richardson (1778–1812) specialized in such reproductions.22 While Brand made use of these alternatives, he also chose to expand his collection through drawn, as well as printed copies. It is evident from the correspondence of Richard Bull (1721–1805), a prolific extra-illustrator who amassed one of the most remarkable and extensive Grangers, that a contemporary print was the ideal, but that when no prints survived it would be acceptable to have a drawn facsimile in its place.23 Professional copyists such as Silvester and George-Perfect Harding (1779/80–1853) were sought after to fill the pages of volumes with drawn portraits.24 In Brand’s Granger numerous drawings could be found supplementing his collection of heads and, much as in other extra-illustrated volumes, a small number of these drawings are by artists such as the Hardings.25 In Brand’s sale a portrait of Jack Cottington, alias Mull’d Sake, is noted to have been drawn by one of the Hardings after a print in the collection of John Delabere; Cauldfield corroborates the creation of this drawing, noting that ‘Mr. Brand was so anxious to obtain a drawing from the original, that he commissioned Mr. Silvester Harding to undertake a journey to Cheltenham for the express purpose’.26 Brand was evidently engaged in commissioning drawings for his Granger; however it is also clear that this was not his primary method for obtaining copies. Rather, Brand chose to create an extensive number of drawn copies himself between the period of 1790 and c.1800 (Fig. 2). His posthumous sale catalogue lists 217 drawings after prints, with a further twenty-one drawings identifiable through various sale catalogues and through known surviving works, bringing us to a total of 238 drawings after portrait prints. Similarly, from these sources a further 189 tracings on oiled paper can be identified. Of these tracings and drawings, only seven are identified as the work of other copyists in the catalogues, with the remaining 420 facsimiles attributed to Brand himself, of which forty-seven have been identified.27 Brand was not unique in creating drawn copies of rare prints for his collections, but the surviving record of his manuscript catalogue, sale catalogue and the drawings themselves allow us to examine his works as a significant group.28 Fig. 2. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Saint Margaret, Queen of Scotland, 1792, pen and ink, 188 x 128 mm. Windsor, Royal Collection © 2017 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Fig. 2. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Saint Margaret, Queen of Scotland, 1792, pen and ink, 188 x 128 mm. Windsor, Royal Collection © 2017 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The majority of Brand’s drawings are executed in pen and ink, but some are completed in pencil and wash, and all his tracings on oiled paper are drawn in pencil only. Of the forty-seven known works by Brand, thirty-four are autographed with inscriptions detailing their creation on the verso.29 Typically, these inscriptions follow a standardized format and outline Brand as the creator, the collection from which the print originated and the location and date on which Brand made his copy (Fig. 3). These inscriptions must have accompanied each individual drawing as this information was also partly recorded in the sale catalogue of 1807. As Brand left no references to his drawings in his correspondence or archives, all of the information relating to the creation of these works is provided by the manuscript catalogue, sale catalogue, and the known surviving drawings. Brand’s exact process of creating his copies is not clear, but the great number of tracings listed in his catalogues indicates that this must have been central to his approach. In the 1807 sale catalogue, most tracings are sold in undescribed lots, but occasional named sitters confirms that Brand had duplicate copies of portraits in tracings and drawings.30 This duplication suggests that he made a copy of a print via a tracing, before working up a finished drawing with the aid of the traced outline. In some cases, such as the portrait of Walter Persons and Jeffrey Hudson, only the tracing is listed in the 1807 sale catalogue and in Brand’s manuscript catalogue; in this instance, he seems to have not made a finished drawing (Fig. 4).31 That Brand retained tracings after he completed a drawing, suggests that he could have used a tracing to create multiple copies, but no surviving examples of this exist. Brand certainly created multiple copies of the same portraits, but not always from the same source. There is a drawing in the National Library of Ireland of the historian John Carve which is inscribed by Brand stating that the copy has been taken from a print in the collection of the dealer John Simco (1747–1824).32 In contrast, the 1807 sale catalogue states that Brand had taken the portrait of Carve from the collection of James Bindley (1737–1818); this drawing is perhaps the pen and ink drawing in the Royal Collection.33 As a prolific extra-illustrator, it is probable that Brand created multiple copies of prints to furnish other volumes in his library.34 The sale catalogue illustrates that he borrowed prints from almost thirty different collections during the compilation of his Granger, but there seems to be no clear system by which Brand selected prints to copy: sitters are distributed across the various categories of Granger’s Biographical History. Fig. 3. View largeDownload slide Detail from the verso of John Brand, Sir Edmund Fortescue, 1793, pen and ink with wash, 235 x 157 mm. Windsor, Royal Collection © 2017 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Fig. 3. View largeDownload slide Detail from the verso of John Brand, Sir Edmund Fortescue, 1793, pen and ink with wash, 235 x 157 mm. Windsor, Royal Collection © 2017 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Fig. 4. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Walter Persons and Jeffrey Hudson, 1791, pencil on oiled paper, 277 x 231 mm. National Portrait Gallery. Fig. 4. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Walter Persons and Jeffrey Hudson, 1791, pencil on oiled paper, 277 x 231 mm. National Portrait Gallery. Before considering Brand’s drawings in the contexts of antiquarian and print collecting societies, they may first be examined as the work of an intriguing amateur artist. By the mid-late eighteenth century drawing had been popularized as a polite pastime and integrated into the education of scholarly gentlemen.35 It is not known when Brand first began to explore drawing, but certainly by the 1780s he was beginning to copy prints and sketch antiquities. In his extensive library, he had numerous volumes on art, drawing, and printmaking including Bickham’s Drawing and Writing Tutor, Grove’s Rules for Drawing Caricatures, The Art of Drawing and Painting in Water Colours, alongside an edition of William Gilpin’s Essay upon Prints, ‘with Additions in M.S. by Mr. Brand’.36 Unlike the drawings of many antiquaries, Brand’s copies of prints seem not to be pure acts of historical record.37 That he felt a personal association with creating these drawings is indicated by his earliest known copy of a print. In the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums there is a pen and ink copy of Rembrandt’s etching of the artist’s mother (Fig. 5);38 the drawing dates from 1782 and illustrates Brand’s interest in old master prints, and his early skill at creating facsimile drawings. The drawing is laid down on wood, with Brand’s inscription pasted on the back: ‘Drawn by the Rev John Brand Chaplain to the Duke of Northd. / Newcastle Upon Tyne / 1782 / and given by him to Miss Jane Poor of the same address.’39 Records do not indicate the identity of the woman named in the inscription, but Brand’s use of his drawing as a gift highlights its importance to the giver, and its anticipated value to the recipient. Brand’s personal engagement with prints and drawings is also tangible. Extra-illustration calls for physical engagement on the part of the collector, through examining, ordering and inserting prints within a volume.40 By personally creating over 400 copies of the portrait prints he examined, Brand developed an even closer relationship with the works in the capacity of a print collector and as an amateur artist. The dating and inscribing of the drawings gives the impression of the process as forming part of Brand’s leisure time: his drawing of Beth Makin, is inscribed ‘From the extremely rare Original in the Collection of James Bindley Esq. Stamp Office. / by John Brand at Syon July 30th 1791 (before Dinner).’41 That the copying of portrait prints was a private process is also highlighted by the absence of any commercial benefit to Brand. As noted above, during the 1790s and 1800s publishers were creating copies of portrait prints to sell to an increasingly demanding print market. However, there is no evidence that Brand ever used his drawings as the basis for published copies. This is not to suggest that he was not engaged with the facsimile engraving market; on the contrary, Brand allowed an engraving of George Montaigne, Archbishop of York (1569–1628) in his possession to be copied for publication.42 Rather, despite this collaborative relationship with publishers and reproductive engravers Brand’s copies did not appear in print. Removed from any economic gain, Brand’s drawings were instead the private endeavours of an amateur artist, shaped by antiquarian interests and supported by a sociable community of print collectors. Fig. 5. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Copy of Rembrandt’s etching, Rembrandt’s mother with her hand on her breast, 1782, pen and ink, 89 x 75 mm. Tyne and Wear Archive and Museum. Fig. 5. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Copy of Rembrandt’s etching, Rembrandt’s mother with her hand on her breast, 1782, pen and ink, 89 x 75 mm. Tyne and Wear Archive and Museum. First and foremost, Brand’s drawings represent the work of a committed antiquary. Through the expansion of his books by way of extra-illustration, Brand used portraits as a tool to understand the past as part of a wider antiquarian methodology. Anecdotal information and biographical content were not mere diversion or illustration, but rather a source of historical evidence.43 Brand identified his collecting as part of a longstanding appreciation of portraiture, illustrated through his manuscript catalogue of his Granger. On the opening page of his catalogue, begun 30 May 1792, he inscribed quotations from Aristotle’s Poetics, Pliny the Elder and Edward Gibbon, drawing on a range of polemical bases from which to interpret his collecting. Brand quotes twice from Pliny’s Natural History, celebrating the study of portraiture: Quo majus (ut equidem arbihor) nullum est felicitates specimen, quam semper omnes seise cupere, quails fuerit aliquis (At any rate in my view at all events there is no greater kind of happiness than that all people for all time should desire to know what kind of a man a person was).44 Brand emphasizes the long tradition of the study of portraits, quoting Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1790): A memorial, more interesting than the skull on the Sandals of a departed worthy, is the faithful Copy of his Person and features delineatd [sic] by the arts of painting Or sculpture. In every age, such Copies, so Congenial to human feelings, have been cherished By the zeal of a private friendship or publick esteem.45 Brand’s collecting of portraits was, however, motivated by more than esteem for the sitters: it was a useful tool in understanding. Ut tota scilicet Regum, Nobilium, et Plebis, tam publica Quam privata, quasi per Imagines, uno intuitu recognita atque intellecta sit Historia (That the whole of history, that is of kings, nobles and commoners, both public and private might be examined and understood in a single look, as though by means of pictures).46 Here, Brand celebrates the capacity of portraiture to illuminate the study of the past. By aligning the study of portraiture with tradition as well as the study of history, he identifies collecting as a scholarly antiquarian pursuit, as well as a polite and profitable pastime. During the eighteenth century, biography as history was a well-established concept and it was widely agreed that by including portraits of those described the student of history could better understand the past. Smiles argues that in the antiquarian tradition, illustration became a form of knowledge in and of itself, wherein ‘physical appearance and modes of presentation of empirical evidence work together to constitute a form of knowledge.’47 Collectors derived meaning from the portraits themselves, not just as historic objects but also on the basis of their ‘faith in physiognomy as a gauge of human character.’48 As such, for Brand the careful copying, recording, and compiling of portraits was as much an exercise in history as collecting.49 Graphic arts and illustration had long played an important role in antiquarian circles, fulfilling a desire to preserve antiquities through visual record. Furthermore, antiquaries such as George Vertue believed that illustration provided the antiquary with a means to communicate the observation of objects first hand.50 In the later 1700s the production of ‘facsimiles’ came to dominate antiquarian print publication; Lolla, in her study of the Society of Antiquaries’ publication of the Domesday Book illustrates their unwavering commitment to attempt to accurately render objects as ‘a tribute to the inexhaustible value of originals’.51 The facsimile portrait publisher Richardson capitalized on this commitment to antiquarian record by issuing hundreds of copies of rare portrait prints; his commitment to accuracy and preservation provided a useful and affordable remedy to the problem of access to rare prints in a competitive market.52 As argued by Lolla, the impulse behind facsimile production was not to deceive collectors, but to present a best possible likeness of a scarce and valuable object worthy of antiquarian interest.53 It was in this cultural context that Brand’s drawings emerged, as ‘fac-similes’ self-consciously rooted in discourses of antiquarian accuracy and observation. Indeed, Brand’s earliest drawings present his early antiquarian attempts to record antiquities for wider scholarly record, and survive in the collections of the Society of Antiquaries of London (Fig. 6). Brand’s sketches depict a Roman altar at Tynemouth Castle, Northumberland, and are coupled with copies of rubbings from the monument, so as to give the fullest visual description of the object though which it can be studied by proxy. 54 Below each of the drawings Brand has systematically inscribed the necessary documentation: ‘Roman Altar found at Tinmouth [sic] Castle in Northumberland 1783’, taking note of location and date. These antiquarian practices of accuracy and record are carried into his print collecting. Much like his sketches of antiquities, Brand’s inscriptions on the versos of many of his drawings represent his attempt to systematically record their creation. The inscriptions follow a standardized format, exemplified by the note on the portrait of Sir Edmund Fortescue (1610–1647): ‘From the extremely rare Original in the collection of Sir Wm. Musgrave Bart. By John Brand at Northumberland House. March 1793’ (Figs 7 and 3).55 Following the format of his antiquarian notations, this inscription provides the reader with the information that the drawing was created from the print, the collection from which it has been borrowed, along with the creator and the date. ‘From the extremely rare Original’ underlines the proximity between the drawing and the print, thus validating its use as an accurate substitute. On occasions where Brand was unable to access an original impression of a portrait, he was also willing to accept proxies as in the case of a portrait of William Stokes: ‘From a very close Copy of the Scarce Original by Mr Graves by John Brand at Syon June 1791.’56 Brand establishes the reliability of his source material as a way of validating his own work. Accuracy was clearly paramount in creating copies of prints, as in the case of his copy of a portrait of Elisabeth Sawyer on which Brand notes: ‘From a tracing taken by Mr Thornton, Bookseller from the very scarce Original (not in Granger) in the Collection of Books on witchcraft belonging to the late Francis Grose Esq. by John Brand at Northd. House Sepr. 13th 1781 – (He had not made a fac-simile of the writing)’.57 The lack of complete reliability of the source material is made evident, as is Brand’s regret that Mr Thornton had not been more diligent. However, not all of Brand’s copies constitute complete facsimiles of the prints. His copy of a print of Matthias de l’Obel, acutely captures the portrait, but leaves the surrounding ornamentation in outline (Fig. 8).58 Similarly, a portrait of Bishop Thomas Cartwright leaves the robes incomplete, causing Brand to inscribe that ‘I had not time to finish the drapery.’ 59 The implication here is that if given the opportunity, Brand would have completed copying the entirety of the print. This approach highlights the competing dual functions of his copy: in ideal, the drawing is to function as a reliable facsimile of the print and as a record of the likeness of the sitter. As a portrait, creating a facsimile of the likeness was clearly the first priority; however Brand’s attention to the print as a whole emphasises his interest in prints beyond mere likeness. In his copy of the portrait of John Harrison, Brand makes a careful note of the inscription and state of the print, ‘From the very scarce Original in the famous collection of Sr. Wm. Musgrave Bart. (an Impression before the Engraver’s Mistake of “Furnuto” for “Turnulo” was corrected) Drawn at Syon House by John Brand. May 1791’.60 Brand’s note of the rarity of the print and the specific state with altered lettering, highlights his focus on the object. Throughout the known examples of Brand’s works, he takes a sympathetic approach to reproducing the original method of printmaking. Brand’s copies of woodcuts of the puritan Thomas Brooks and the hermit, Roger Crab reflect exactly the identifiers of the technique, creating large areas of block colour to simulate the process of relief printing (Fig. 9).61 In comparison, drawings after very fine engravings, such as the portrait of St Margaret, Queen of Scotland are executed entirely in line.62 While Brand worked most frequently in pen and ink, he utilized different techniques when required to produce a different effect in recreating a print, such as his copy of a portrait of Elizabeth, Duchess of Albemarle (Fig. 10).63 In order to capture the visual appearance of the original mezzotint Brand has elected to work in pencil and a light wash to recreate the tonal quality of the print. Brand’s copies are not merely recreations of likeness, although the primacy of the head does underline their importance as portraits; they are also assiduous copies of the prints themselves. Brand’s inscriptions also serve to illustrate his attention to the prints as individual objects of antiquarian interest: ‘Ad Exemplar rarissimum’; ‘From the very rare Original’; ‘From the extremely rare Original’; ‘From the very scarce Original’.64 Brand’s continual reference to the scarcity of the impression serves as a partial justification of his work as the recording of rare historical and bibliographical evidence, but also as a celebration of the prized original, all the more valued for its rarity. Similarly evident from his notes is the significance of the collections from which these prints have originated. Collectors’ names are listed alongside the rarity of the print as a seal of approval, making visible the social bonds which added significance to these objects. Fig. 6. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Roman altar from Tynemouth Castle, 1783, pencil, 252 x 141 mm. Society of Antiquaries of London, by kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London. Fig. 6. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Roman altar from Tynemouth Castle, 1783, pencil, 252 x 141 mm. Society of Antiquaries of London, by kind permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London. Fig. 7. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Sir Edmund Fortescue, 1793, pen and ink with wash, 235 x 157 mm. Windsor, Royal Collection © 2017 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Fig. 7. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Sir Edmund Fortescue, 1793, pen and ink with wash, 235 x 157 mm. Windsor, Royal Collection © 2017 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Fig. 8. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Mathieu de L’Obel, 1793, pen and ink, 274 x 180 mm. Wellcome Library, London. Fig. 8. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Mathieu de L’Obel, 1793, pen and ink, 274 x 180 mm. Wellcome Library, London. Fig. 9. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Roger Crabb, 1791, pen and ink, 180 x 134 mm. National Portrait Gallery. Fig. 9. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Roger Crabb, 1791, pen and ink, 180 x 134 mm. National Portrait Gallery. Fig. 10. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Elizabeth, Duchess of Albemarle, 1793, pencil with wash, 325 x 256 mm. Windsor, Royal Collection © 2017 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Fig. 10. View largeDownload slide John Brand, Elizabeth, Duchess of Albemarle, 1793, pencil with wash, 325 x 256 mm. Windsor, Royal Collection © 2017 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. A culture of ‘clubbabilty’ and sociability has been highlighted by Peltz as the bedrock of print collecting and extra-illustration.65 Brand’s manuscript catalogue, the 1807 sale catalogue, correspondence, and the drawings themselves illustrate how important sociability and community was in the creation of these copies. The inscriptions on the versos of the drawings and the sale catalogue of 1807 illustrate that Brand borrowed prints from no fewer than twenty-eight different collections during the compilation of his Granger. Brand’s list of lenders reads as a Who’s Who of late eighteenth-century print collecting; he took opportunities to examine other extra-illustrated volumes, compiling a handwritten list of the prints in John Charles Crowles’s (1738–1811) History of the Rebellion by Clarendon, as well as ‘Notes – on the Collection of Portraits (Drawings and Engravings) in the King’s Clarendon. Preserved at the Queen’s House in 3 vols.’66 It is evident from Brand’s drawings that these exchanges were not singular occurrences but formed part of continuing relationships. From 1791 onwards Brand borrowed almost fifty prints from eminent collector Sir William Musgrave (1735–1800). This friendship continued to develop with Brand contributing to Musgrave’s portrait lists in the latter part of the 1790s.67 Peltz highlights a culture of gentlemanly generosity within contemporary print collecting which depended on communal reciprocity.68 By granting Brand access to rare and valuable prints, collectors fulfilled their role as polite members of this community; while Brand’s requests to see these works and his inscriptions on his drawings served to memorialize the celebrated collections and their owners. The correspondence between Richard Bull and James Granger records the regular sending, receiving, and returning of prints via post – a staple of the sharing culture of print collecting.69 The majority of Brand’s known works are noted as being copied at Syon or at Northumberland House, suggesting that collectors must have been in the habit of sending prints either by post or through personal exchange. In other cases, such as his copy of a portrait of General John Desborough copied from the collection of John Stuart, 1st Marquis of Bute (1744–1814), was made in situ at Sutton Hoo, indicating the Marquis’s willingness to share his collections with interested guests.70 Associations such as these suggests that Brand benefited from his position of employment within the duke’s household, although this position does not appear to have provided Brand with the opportunity to access the celebrated collections of Elizabeth Percy, Duchess of Northumberland (1716 –1776).71 Residence in the capital and his position in the Society of Antiquaries of London must have provided Brand with opportunities to meet and converse with other collectors, proving opportunity to request permission to borrow certain works. Indeed, a number of Brand’s drawings are noted to have been completed at Somerset House, where he also resided in his capacity as secretary to the Society. The sociability of print collecting, sharing, and exchanging is rarely reflected in Brand’s surviving correspondence, the majority of which pertains to his publications during the 1780s and his responsibilities within the Society of Antiquaries. A letter from Charles Townley (1737–1810) in 1788 suggests that some of Brand’s early involvement with print collecting may have come through his position within the duke’s household: ‘Mr Townley presents his Compliments to Mr Brand and desires his acceptance of the engraving sent herewith; he has added another in case the Duke of Northumberland collects prints of this kind.’72 Brand’s response also highlights another key aspect of print collecting, namely the exchange of prints as gifts: ‘Mr Brand presents his Compliments to Mr Townley and is extremely obliged to him for the very curious Engravings He has been so good as to send Him. Mr B. will take the earliest opportunity of offering the Duplicate in Mr Townley’s name to the Duke of Northumberland.’73 In the 1800 sale of Musgrave’s collection, from which Brand borrowed the highest number of prints, there is listed a portrait of Arthur, Earl of Donegal in pen and ink by the Revd John Brand.74 The 1807 sale catalogue reveals that Brand also had a drawn copy of the same portrait.75 As Musgrave’s collection was dispersed before Brand’s, it is likely that Brand presented Musgrave with this drawing as a gift. Although Brand’s practices were unusual, his processes of borrowing, sharing, gifting, and selling portraits, allowed him to engage in the culture of exchange and gentlemanly sociability which characterized print collecting in this period. The majority of Brand’s drawings remain untraced, perhaps secreted between the pages of extra-illustrated volumes and mistaken for the prints they represent. The small number of traceable drawings provides us with a fascinating glimpse into antiquarian record and study, contemporary print collecting, and how these spheres shaped the work of an eccentric and intriguing amateur artist. Acknowledgements I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art for their generosity in awarding a Research Support Grant to facilitate this research. I would also like to thank the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle and Woodburn Archives, alongside Dr Lucy Peltz for her insight and Dr Kate Heard and Martin Clayton for all their advice. Footnotes 1 The History and Antiquities of the Town and County of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1789) and Observations on the popular Antiquities of Great Britain (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1777). 2 Eneas Mackenzie, A Descriptive and Historical Account of the Town and County of Newcastle Upon Tyne, vol. i (Newcastle upon Tyne, 1827), p. 340n. 3 Ibid., pp. 339–41 (notes). An account of Brand’s life is also published in John Crawford Hodgson, ‘John Brand, the historian of Newcastle, and his foster parents’, Archaeologia Aeliana 3rd ser. 14 (1917), pp. 107–24, and Rosemary Sweet, ‘Brand, John (1744–1806)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004). Although Brand was appointed personal chaplain to the 1st Duke in 1786, he had been employed as a chaplain in his household from at least 1782. 4 Mackenzie, op. cit. (note 2) p. 340n; see also William Henry Ireland’s satiric poem published under a pseudonym, ‘Satiricus Sculptor’, Chalcographimania (London, 1814), p. 107 n, which reports that Brand was forced to sell choice specimens from his library to pay his fine for non-residence. 5 Sweet, op. cit. (note 3). 6 Mackenzie op. cit. (note 2) p. 341n. 7 William Clarke, Repertorium bibliographicum; or, Some account of the most celebrated British libraries (London, 1819), p. 411 (notes); Mackenzie, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 341n. 8 James Cauldfield, Calcographiana. The printseller’s chronicle and collector’s guide to the knowledge and value of engraved British portraits (London, 1814), p. 89n. 9 Oxford, Bodleian Library, ms Eng. misc. e. 242–3. 10 London, Society of Antiquaries of London, ms 752, and Woodhorn Archives, Northumberland, sant/beq/3. 11 Woodhorn Archives, Northumberland, sant/beq/3/2 and sant/beq/3/3/1. See also a list of purchases in Bodleian Library, ms Eng. misc. e. 485. 12 Mr Stewart, Bibliotheca Brandiana. A catalogue of the collection of John Brand (London, 1807). 13 Clarke, op. cit. (note 7) p. 410n. 14 Now in the Royal Library, Royal Collection Inventory Number (hereafter rcin) 1192151. 15 rcin 1192151. 16 For Hollar’s map of Newcastle which Brand copies, see British Museum, q,6.125; The New Hollstein: German engravings, etchings and woodcuts 1400–1700 (Amsterdam, 1996), no. 1331. 17 Granger’s Biographical History was first published in 1769. For Brand’s catalogues see William Richardson, The genuine and valuable Collection of English Portraits; Hogarth’s works, original impressions (London, 1807); and Bodleian Library, ms Eng. misc. e. 485. For the remainder of Brand’s sale, without drawings, see William Stewart, Coins and Medals, Prints (London, 1808). For a consummate study of extra-illustration see Lucy Peltz, Facing the Text: Extra-illustration, print culture, and society in Britain, 1769–1840 (San Marino, 2017). 18 For further reading on the subject of extra-illustration see Lucy Peltz, ‘Amateur and commercial histories of extra-illustration’, in Owners, Annotators and the Signs of Reading, ed. Robin Myers, Michael Harris and Giles Mandelbrote (London, 2005), pp. 102–28. 19 Lucy Peltz, ‘Engraved portrait heads and the rise of extra-illustration: the Eton correspondence of the Revd James Granger and Richard Bull, 1769–1774’, Walpole Society 66 (2004), p. 6. 20 Ibid., letter 36. Bull writes to Granger acknowledging ‘the enormous price, to which which your work had advanc’d English Portraits’. 21 Ibid., pp. 120–28. 22 Peltz, op. cit. (note 17), pp. 211–35; also Peltz op. cit. (note 18) on topography; on Pennant see pp. 112–19; for notes on Richardson and the Hardings see pp. 122–25 and pp. 126–8 respectively. See also Jane Roberts, ‘Edward Harding and Queen Charlotte’, in Burning Bright: Essays in Honour of David Bindman, ed. Diana Dethloff, Tessa Murdoch, Kim Sloan and Caroline Elam (London, 2015), pp. 147–8. 23 Peltz, op. cit. (note 19), pp. 19 and 30, letters 22, 34, and 36. 24 For Edward Harding’s extra-illustration of Queen Charlotte’s library see Roberts, op. cit. (note 22). In a similar vein, Moses Griffiths (1749–1819) was employed as an illustrator to create topographical views. On the works of Moses Griffiths see Peltz, op. cit. (note 18), pp. 110–12. 25 Richardson, op. cit. (note 17), day 2, lot 85; day 5, lots 34, 45; day 6, lots 54, 85. 26 Cauldfield, op. cit. (note 8), p. 117 (notes). 27 For a full list of works by Brand, see online Appendix 1. 28 Another print collector who also amassed a significant collection of hand-drawn copies after portrait prints was the artist, draughtsman and curator William Alexander (1767–1816). The 1817 Sotheby’s catalogue of Alexander’s sale reveals that he had a collection of over 150 drawings after prints. However, unlike Brand, they sit within the context of his much large collection of works as a topographical artist, draughtsman and surveyor. The locations of Alexander’s copies are not known. 29 Examples of Brand’s drawings can be found in the following collections: Royal Collection, Windsor; British Museum, London; National Portrait Gallery, London; Wellcome Collection, London; Sutherland collection, Ashmolean, Oxford; National Library of Ireland, Dublin, and Tyne and Wear Museums, Newcastle. 30 For example the drawing and tracing of George Berkeley, 8th Baron Berkeley (1601–53), day 1, lots 127 and 130 respectively. 31 National Portrait Gallery, d28516. 32 National Library of Ireland, pd carv-th (2) i. 33 rcin 652122. 34 It is apparent that Brand extra-illustrated many of his volumes to greater or lesser degrees: it is recorded in a clipping from an unknown journal dating from c.1876 that one copy of his History of Newcastle was expanded from two to seven volumes; see Woodhorn Archives, Northumberland: sant/beq/3/2/3. 35 Ann Bermingham, Learning to Draw (London, 2000), p. 77; see also David Alexander, Amateurs and Printmaking in England 1750–1830 (Oxford, 1983). 36 Stewart, op. cit. (note 12), vol. i, lots 1568 and 2653, vol. ii, lot 917. Gilpin’s essay is listed in vol. i, lot 2659. The present location of this book is unknown. 37 On antiquarian drawings see Kim Sloan, A Noble Art (London, 2000), pp. 103–8. 38 Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums (hereafter twcms), e5257, drawn after Rembrandt’s etching: The New Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish etchings, engravings and woodcuts 1450–1700 (Amsterdam, 1993), no. 87. 39 twcms, e5257. 40 Lucy Peltz, ‘The pleasure of the book: extra-illustration, an 18th-century fashion’, Things (Summer 1998), pp. 24–5. 41 National Portrait Gallery, d5786. 42 rcin 658987. 43 Peltz, op. cit. (note 19), p. 13. 44 Bodleian, Oxford: ms Eng. misc. e.485. This is a transcription of Brand’s lines: In Loeb the quote appears as: utique maius, ut equidem arbitror, nullem est felicitates specimen quam semper omnes scire cupere, quails fuerit aliquis, ‘At any rate in my view at all events there is no greater kind of happiness than that all people for all time should desire to know what kind of a man a person was.’ Pliny the Elder, Natural History Book xxxv. 45 Bodleian Library, ms Eng. misc. e. 485. 46 Ibid. My thanks to Emma Stuart for her assistance with this translation. Unlike the earlier quotations, Brand offers no reference to his source other than unattributed initials: ‘(sw)’, or possibly ‘(jw)’. 47 S. Smiles ‘British antiquity and antiquarian illustration’, in Lucy Peltz and Martin Myrone, Producing the Past (London, 1999), pp. 57–8. 48 Peltz, op. cit. (note 19), p. 13. 49 Peltz, op. cit. (note 17), pp. 22–6. 50 Martin Myrone, ‘The Society of Antiquaries and the graphic arts: George Vertue and his legacy’ in Visions of Antiquity, ed. S. Pearce (London, 2007), pp. 107. 51 Maria Grazia Lolla, ‘Monuments and texts: antiquarianism and the beauty of antiquity’, Art History 25 (2002), pp. 438–43, at p. 443. 52 Peltz, op. cit. (note 17), p. 259. 53 Lolla, op. cit. (note 51), p. 441. 54 Society of Antiquaries of London, Britannia Romana 108.3. Brand’s drawings were later reproduced in the Society’s publication, Archaeologia 8 (1787), pp. 326–8. 55 rcin 654726, for an impression of the original print see rcin 654725. 56 National Portrait Gallery, d28377. 57 National Portrait Gallery d28159. 58 Wellcome Collection, icv no. 3841. 59 Ashmolean Museum, Sutherland Collection, Burnet vol. i, p. 695. 60 National Portrait Gallery, d2196. 61 National Portrait Gallery, d26859 and d29219. 62 rcin 933195. 63 rcin 658887, for an impression of the original mezzotint by William Sherwin see British Museum, 1862,1011.235. 64 rcin 650530, 651143, 654726 National Portrait Gallery, d22643. 65 Peltz, op. cit. (note 17) pp. 63–76; Peltz, op. cit. (note 19), pp. 7, 10–14, 32–9. 66 Bodleian Library, ms Eng. misc. e. 485, for the ‘King’s Clarendon’, see rcin 1027884–6. 67 Arline Meyer, ‘Sir William Musgrave’s “Lists of Portrait”: with an account of head-hunting in the eighteenth-century’, Walpole Society 54 (1988), pp. 467–9. 68 Peltz, op. cit. (note 17), p. 185. 69 Peltz, op. cit. (note 19), pp. 11–12. 70 Ashmolean Museum, Sutherland Collection, Clarendon vol. iii, p. 518. 71 Peltz, op. cit. (note 17), p. 309. 72 Woodhorn Archives, Northumberland, sant/beq/3/2/3. 73 Woodhorn Archives, Northumberland, sant/beq/3/2/3. 74 William Richardson, British Portraits: A catalogue of a genuine and extensive collection of English portraits (London, 1800), day 4, lot 19. 75 A second drawing of the Earl of Donegal was also listed in Brand’s sale: day 1, lot 124; Richardson, op. cit. (note 17). One of the drawings survives in the British Museum, p,5.130. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
Journal of the History of Collections – Oxford University Press
Published: Mar 9, 2019
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera