This distant view of Lancaster Castle from the river Lune is one of forty or so outline drawings by Girtin that came from the collection of Dr Thomas Monro (1759–1833) and that are now part of the Turner Bequest at Tate Britain. None of the drawings were made on the spot and instead the majority were copied from the sketches of Girtin’s first significant patron, the amateur artist and antiquarian James Moore (1762–99). In this case, however, although Moore did visit Lancaster on his return from his trip to Scotland in 1792, none of his sketches survive, and Girtin’s outline was probably made from a drawing by his master, Edward Dayes (1763–1804), who certainly produced the model for another view of the town (TG0229). The outlines, generally conforming to Moore’s standard size of roughly 6 × 8 3/4 in (15.2 × 22.2 cm), were probably made around 1794–95, at a time when Girtin, together with Joseph Mallord William Turner (1775–1851), was employed at Monro’s home at the Adelphi to produce watercolour versions of the outlines of John Robert Cozens (1752–97), amongst others. The precise function of Girtin’s copies after the drawings of Moore and Dayes is not so clear, however. A significant number were used as the basis for small watercolours painted on card, measuring roughly 3 × 4 3/4 in (7.6 × 12.1 cm), including twenty or so that found a home in the Turner Bequest, and these may have been produced with a topographical publication in mind (Wilton, 1984a, p.12). That, in itself, does not explain why Monro came to own the larger pencil copies, however. In the absence of any documentary evidence, my hunch is that rather than being commissioned by Monro, the drawings were produced by Girtin for his own use as models for possible watercolour compositions – they all depict views of subjects he could not have seen by this date – and that he subsequently sold them to his patron. The watercolour executed from this outline (TG0357) is uncharacteristic in one respect, however, as it modifies the source drawing, simplifying the foreground and changing the course of the river, though it still leaves the tower of the Priory Church of St Mary confusingly mixed in with the castle buildings.

There are no fewer than three different views of Lancaster amongst the small cards produced by Girtin for Monro (the others being TG0229 and TG0358). This is more than for any other location, begging the question of whether the town had a special significance for the patron; certainly, it is unlikely to have had any meaning for Girtin, who did not visit Lancaster or any adjacent region. But perhaps it is wrong to assume that the selection of subjects was Monro’s since, other than the choice of three views of Lancaster, there seems to be no discernible rationale that unites the outlines and the coloured cards, either by geography or building type – certainly nothing that might have made for a thematically unified publication, as has been suggested (Wilton, 1984a, p.12). It may be that Girtin was instead given the freedom to select from the vast range of sketches and outlines in Monro’s possession compositions that might work as small sketch-like watercolours and that no particular significance should be read into his choices.

The attribution of the pencil outlines in the Turner Bequest was a matter of considerable confusion until the publication of Andrew Wilton’s cogently argued article on the Monro School in 1984 (Wilton, 1984a, pp.9–10). Initially, Alexander Finberg, the first cataloguer of the bequest, ascribed the outlines to Girtin but thought that they were made on the spot (Finberg, 1913). Charles F. Bell, in turn, recognised that the drawings were copies, but suggested that they were made by George Isham Parkyns (1749–c.1820) in relation to his work on Moore’s Monastic Remains and Ancient Castles in England and Wales (1792) (Bell, 1915–17, pp.60–66). Then in 1938 Bell changed his mind and switched the attribution to Dayes, citing a letter from Turner in which he stated his opinion that the drawings he had bought from Monro’s sale had been produced by Girtin’s master (Bell, 1938–39, pp.97–103). Finally, Wilton’s article seems to have settled the argument, and I for one have no doubts about the attribution to Girtin of the set of drawings.

1795 - 1796

Lancaster Castle and Priory Church, Seen with the Old Bridge over the River Lune

TG0229

1795 - 1796

Lancaster Castle, from the River Lune

TG0357

1795 - 1796

Lancaster Castle and Priory Church, Seen with the Old Bridge over the River Lune

TG0229

1795 - 1796

Lancaster Priory Church, Seen with the Old Bridge over the River Lune

TG0358