This watercolour, which for a long period was known incorrectly as Richmond Bridge, shows the view through the northern arches of the bridge over the river Wharfe at Wetherby in Yorkshire. It is one of two almost identical versions of the composition (the other being TG1644) that were executed after a sketch that appears to have been produced during Girtin’s stay in Yorkshire in the summer of 1800 (TG1536). The outline does little more than indicate the relative positions of the different elements of the composition, however, and the artist must have conceived the light effect, the play of shadows, and the different textures of stone, water, tree and thatch in the studio. Travellers who followed the course of the river Wharfe sometimes commented on the picturesque charms of the market town of Wetherby, but, despite its position on the Great North Road, few artists painted the subject. Unfortunately, we do not know whether this or either of the other Wetherby subjects executed by Girtin (TG1642 and TG1644) were commissions, but it may be that the artist himself recognised the potential of the town during his travels and produced his views for sale on the open market, since all of them conform to the standard size of the works that were disposed of by Samuel William Reynolds (1773–1835), who acted on behalf of the artist in his final years in a role somewhere between agent and dealer. In this case, the artist chose a view looking upstream through two of the arches of the bridge, the only part of the scene that remains, towards the mills (which were used for grinding rape and corn at this date), with one of the wheels appearing to the left of the central pier (Hill, 1999, p.43). As Francis Hawcroft has pointed out, the use of a bridge to frame a background scene was pioneered by Giovanni Antonio Canal (Canaletto) (1697–1768), though the more immediate source for this lay in compositions by Girtin’s master, Edward Dayes (1763–1804) (see figure 1) (Hawcroft, 1975, p.51). However, unlike either earlier artist, Girtin used the framing device not for a famous architectural motif but for a humble stretch of vernacular buildings with no obvious pictorial interest, and the radical innovation is enhanced by the use of two arches, which are determinedly asymmetrical. Overlaying images of the pencil outline and the watercolour illustrates how the artist extended the arch laterally to the right, so that it no longer balances the other, to the point where the perspective breaks down. Contrary to the suggestion of David Hill, who thought that this disturbing effect was a result of the bridge being remodelled and widened, this appears to have been a way of including more of the distant view of the mills (Hill, 1999, p.43).

Overlaying images of the two versions of the Wetherby composition also illustrates just how close the two works are, not just in terms of size. Like the two versions of Paris: The Ruins of the Roman Baths, Hôtel de Cluny (TG1896 and TG1897), the watercolours are identical, even down to details such as the reflections in the water and the stains on the masonry, where one might expect variations given Girtin’s flair for improvisation. The only discernible difference I can see is that in TG1644, the version in Leeds, the buildings seen through both arches are marginally bigger, but this does not mean that the ‘composition has been refined slightly’, as Hill has suggested as a reason for thinking that this version is the later of the two (Hill, 1999, p.43). Indeed, the fact that this watercolour still includes pencil work might have suggested that it is the first version, were it not for the fact that I do not think trying to establish the primacy of one over the other is relevant in this case. Such is the congruence, down to the tiniest of details, that I suspect the artist had both watercolours to hand as he worked on them, and that he painted on both at the same time, moving from one to the other, completing a wash of each tint in turn.

On a technical note, the paper historian Peter Bower has identified the support used by Girtin as an off-white laid drawing cartridge paper by an unknown Dutch manufacturer (Smith, 2002b, p.173; Bower, Report). This is the same paper that the artist employed for Farm Buildings, Probably in Surrey (TG1432). The work is in excellent condition, allowing one to appreciate the economy of means with which the artist achieved his effects, as well as details such as the underdrawing in pencil to the right and a fingerprint that has strayed into the shadow of the pier in the centre.

(?) 1800

Wetherby: Looking through the Bridge to the Mills

TG1644

1799 - 1800

Wetherby: Looking through the Bridge to the Mills

TG1536

(?) 1800

Wetherby Bridge and Mills, Looking across the Weir

TG1642

(?) 1800

Wetherby: Looking through the Bridge to the Mills

TG1644

(?) 1802

Paris: The Ruins of the Roman Baths, Hôtel de Cluny

TG1896

(?) 1802

Paris: The Ruins of the Roman Baths, Hôtel de Cluny

TG1897

(?) 1800

Wetherby: Looking through the Bridge to the Mills

TG1644

1799 - 1800

Farm Buildings, Probably in Surrey

TG1432