The True Face of Sir Isaac Brock

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository University of Calgary Press University of Calgary Press Open Access Books 2018-10 The True Face of Sir Isaac Brock St-Denis, Guy University of Calgary Press St-Denis, G. (2018). The True Face of Sir Isaac Brock. Calgary, AB. University of Calgary Press. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/108892 book https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca THE TRUE FACE OF SIR ISAAC BROCK by Guy St-Denis ISBN 978-1-77385-021-4 THIS BOOK IS AN OPEN ACCESS E-BOOK. It is an electronic version of a book that can be purchased in physical form through any bookseller or on-line retailer, or from our distributors. Please support this open access publication by requesting that your university purchase a print copy of this book, or by purchasing a copy yourself. If you have any questions, please contact us at [email protected] Cover Art: The artwork on the cover of this book is not open access and falls under traditional copyright provisions; it cannot be reproduced in any way without written permission of the artists and their agents. The cover can be displayed as a complete cover image for the purposes of publicizing this work, but the artwork cannot be extracted from the context of the cover of this specific work without breaching the artist’s copyright. COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This open-access work is published under a Creative Commons licence. This means that you are free to copy, distribute, display or perform the work as long as you clearly attribute the work to its authors and publisher, that you do not use this work for any commercial gain in any form, and that you in no way alter, transform, or build on the work outside of its use in normal academic scholarship without our express permission. If you want to reuse or distribute the work, you must inform its new audience of the licence terms of this work. For more information, see details of the Creative Commons licence at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ UNDER THE CREATIVE UNDER THE CREATIVE COMMONS LICENCE YOU COMMONS LICENCE YOU MAY NOT: MAY: • gain financially from the work in any way; • read and store this • sell the work or seek monies in relation to the distribution document free of charge; of the work; • distribute it for personal • use the work in any commercial activity of any kind; use free of charge; • profit a third party indirectly via use or distribution of • print sections of the work the work; for personal use; • distribute in or through a commercial body (with • read or perform parts of the exception of academic usage within educational the work in a context where institutions such as schools and universities); no financial transactions • reproduce, distribute, or store the cover image outside take place. of its function as a cover of this work; • alter or build on the work outside of normal academic scholarship. Acknowledgement: We acknowledge the wording around open access used by Australian publisher, re.press, and thank them for giving us permission to adapt their wording to our policy http://www.re-press.org B 7 A A Very Close Call Although Ludwig Kosche was convinced that Brock’s profile portrait (fig. 3) had been painted in Montreal or Quebec City, he struggled to find the evidence necessary to account for how it ended up in Guernsey. Kosche regarded Major John B. Glegg’s statement that he “never possessed a good likeness” of Brock as potentially relevant, if only because it did not rule out the possibility that the profile portrait was sent to William Brock. But even this clue was ultimately dismissed for being “anything but explic- it.”1 Admittedly, Major Glegg’s statement was vague; however, I was not prepared to reject it out of hand. Instead, I steeled myself for yet another in-depth analysis. While I knew my diligence might result in more con- fusion than clarification, the major’s close association with Brock justified the extra effort. I started off by checking to make sure that Kosche had copied Major Glegg’s statement verbatim. It squared perfectly: “I regret to say,” the major wrote, “that I never possessed a good likeness of your Brother, nor did he ever sit for it being taken in this Country.”2 After several readings, not only of this passage but also the entire letter in which it was contained, I began to wonder what had suddenly prompted Major Glegg to raise the matter of Brock’s portrait. With a few more readings, I realized that the major was answering a question posed by William Brock after he inherit- ed his brother’s personal effects. This query was originally contained in a letter written to Major Glegg in early June of 1813. But by the following September, William Brock had reason to believe that his letter had been lost to an enemy privateer on the high seas, and so he wrote again, enclos- ing a copy of his first letter with the second—both of which Major Glegg acknowledged in his reply.3 I knew full well that any attempt to locate 137 these additional letters would be futile. However, by reading between the lines of Major Glegg’s letter, I could see that William Brock had not only thanked him for the delivery of his brother’s personal effects, but also asked if there might be a better portrait. Such a request would account for Major Glegg having to admit in his reply that he never possessed a “good likeness” of Brock, by which he simply meant to say that had nothing better to offer. There was no doubt in my mind that William Brock had re- ceived a portrait of his brother from Major Glegg, but for some unknown reason it was found wanting. In trying to account for the profile portrait’s whereabouts, Kosche had uncovered what he thought was better evidence that Brock’s profile portrait had been sent to Guernsey at an early date. It was Mrs. De Beauvoir de Lisle’s recollection, which was written down for Colonel Charles W. Robinson in 1882. According to Mrs. de Lisle, who was the former Miss Caroline Tupper, there were two portraits of her uncle Isaac, and these portraits were the property of his brothers, Irving and Savery Brock, respectively.4 Considering Mrs. de Lisle’s longevity and relationship to Brock, her recollection was welcomed as evidence “of a slightly more solid quality” than Major Glegg’s statement.5 That Mrs. de Lisle remembered two portraits was easily explained: one was the original (fig. 3), and the other was the copy (fig. 4). Kosche thought it was feasible enough, but he was still unable to definitively link either one of them to the profile portrait owned by Captain Mellish.6 While searching for a viable solution to this dilemma, Kosche hap- pened upon the footnote in Ferdinand Brock Tupper’s biography of his famous uncle. In it, Tupper recited an attempt by the officers of the 49th Regiment to obtain a portrait of Brock for their mess room. When they approached the family in 1845, these officers were disappointed to learn that Brock’s relatives “possessed no good likeness of the general”—sug- gesting that there was no such portrait.7 This, of course, was the same mis- conception that had given Lieutenant Governor John Beverly Robinson so much cause for concern. But as Kosche learned from the lieutenant governor’s experience, which he found published in an old magazine arti- cle, the officers of the 49th Regiment were disappointed not because the family possessed no likeness of Brock, but rather because they “possessed no good likeness.”8 This latter wording was suspiciously similar to Major 138 The True Face of Sir Isaac Brock Figure 3. Figure 4. Glegg’s statement that he “never possessed a good likeness” of Brock, and so it appeared to Kosche that Tupper was influenced by what he must have thought was the major’s low opinion of the profile portrait.9 Kosche might not have been any further ahead in terms of making a connection, but thanks to Mrs. de Lisle’s recollection, he could argue that whether good, bad, or indifferent, one of the portraits she remembered was the profile portrait owned by Captain Mellish. Then, just when Kosche was begin- ning to think the matter well enough resolved, the question of quality came back to haunt him. From what Kosche could tell, the profile portrait was of a very fine quality—and its copy, of which he was aware, was nearly as good. Why Tupper should have considered either one of them to be “no good” was a great mystery, and so Kosche tried to determine why the copy was made in hopes that it might somehow explain Tupper’s negative attitude. Unfortunately there were no revealing records. Yet, because the profile portrait owned by Captain Mellish excelled in “clarity, precision of execu- tion, and strength of colour,” it was obviously the original and the version that warranted the most attention.10 This determination, however, did nothing to bring about closure, as Kosche soon began to question whether Tupper referred to the profile portrait (fig. 3) or the bronze profile (fig.11 8). In the end, he decided that Tupper must have been thinking of something other than the bronze profile, or bronzed silhouette, as it could not pos- sibly depict Brock.

Load more