This view of Durham Cathedral from the river Wear, with the castle and Framwellgate Bridge in the distance, is one of two versions of a composition that Girtin appears to have painted soon after returning from his first independent tour, to the northern counties and Scottish Borders in 1796 (the other being TG1079). The sketch on which the two works are based, taken from Prebends Bridge, has not been traced, however. In view of this, the possibility that they were actually copied from a composition by Girtin’s master, Edward Dayes (1763–1804), needs to be considered, not least because his drawings formed the basis for the young artist’s two earliest views of Durham (TG0012 and TG0228). Indeed, the view by Dayes that formed the model for Girtin's watercolour from 1790 (see TG0012 figure 2) adopts a similar viewpoint, looking from the south west, whilst another of his Durham scenes also seems to have been taken from Prebends Bridge (see TG1079 figure 1). Moreover, like his master, Girtin also chose to exclude the prominent weir running diagonally across the river Wear at this point, though again like Dayes (see TG0012 figure 1) he did include it in the slightly smaller version (TG1079). However, there are two details that indicate that this view of the cathedral was not made from a sketch by his master. Thus, whilst the two early Girtin copies include the scaffolding around the southern of the two west towers that is shown in Dayes’ view from Prebends Bridge as he noted in a sketch from his 1789 visit to the city, all of Girtin’s later Durham views omit this detail as restoration work had been completed in the interim. Moreover, the inclusion of the reflections of the cathedral's western towers in the foreground, a detail that is nowhere apparent in the watercolours by Dayes that feature instead a more turbulent river surface, suggests that this seemingly implausible feature had been observed and noted by the artist on his 1796 visit. A photograph taken by Tom Girtin (1913–94) in the 1970s, as he travelled in his ancestor's footsteps (Girtin Archive: 34/1), confirms the veracity of Girtin's observation.

Establishing that this work, unlike Durham Cathedral, from the River Wear (TG0228) dated 1795, was not worked after a Dayes composition is particularly significant because its muted palette, certainly in comparison with the slightly smaller version (TG1079), might have suggested an earlier date, perhaps even prior to the 1796 tour. That said, I am not sure exactly how the compositional and stylistic differences between the two versions translates in terms of their dates and I have consequently left both as 1796-97. Could it be that the stylistic differences reflect the interests of patrons, rather than being the result of different dates of production, as there is  evidence that both were commissioned from the artist, rather than being produced for sale on the open market. Indeed, the first owners of both versions were credible amateur artists in their own right. Amelia Long, Lady Farnborough (1772–1837), the owner of TG1079 is known to have taken lessons with Girtin and had a collection containing a number of other watercolours such as The Eagle Tower, Caernarfon Castle (TG1310), whilst this watercolour was commissioned by Dr Thomas Monro (1759–1833), and it is not inconceivable that either or both patrons influenced the artist's approach. Monro's ownership of this vesion is documented in the diary of the artist John Linnell (1792–1882), which records his efforts in 1820 to act as an intermediary in the sale from Monro’s collection of views of York Minster (TG1047) and Jedburgh Abbey (TG1231) to the collector Chambers Hall (1786–1855) (Linnell, Journal, 1817–23).¹ Neither this view of Durham nor the other two subjects, which were also derived from Girtin’s 1796 tour, have hitherto been associated with Monro, and the idea that the patron’s support might have been instrumental in the artist’s itinerary has therefore not been properly considered. The view of York Minster has the same dimensions as this view of Durham, suggesting that they may have been conceived as a pair. Moreover, given that Jedburgh seems to have been exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1797, it is reasonable to conclude not just that all three works were produced in the immediate aftermath of the tour but also that the inclusion of the three locations was at the behest of the patron.

A full-scale copy of Monro’s version of Durham Cathedral by the amateur artist John Henderson (1764–1843) is further evidence of its provenance (see figure 1). Henderson was Monro’s neighbour and lent the patron works from his own collection, and in return he was able to borrow watercolours by Girtin, from which he made copies, including of this Durham scene and the view of York Minster (see TG1047 figure 3). The copy in this case has the added interest of indicating something of the original appearance of the Girtin watercolour before it lost some of its colour as a result of fading. However, neither the copy nor the Girtin original contains any evidence to back up the claim of the biographer of Joseph Mallord William Turner (1775–1851), Walter Thornbury (1828–76), who claimed that, finding ‘the drawing weak or defective’, Turner had ‘retouched it’ (Thornbury, 1862, vol.1, p.123). More to the point, Turner would have seen Girtin’s watercolour at Monro’s house and as was frequently the case on his 1797 northern tour he appears to have been inspired to adopt a similar position when sketching at Durham (Tate, Turner Bequest, XXXV 11).

1796 - 1797

Durham Cathedral, from the South West

TG1079

1790

Durham Cathedral, from the River Wear

TG0012

1795

Durham Cathedral, from the River Wear

TG0228

1790

Durham Cathedral, from the River Wear

TG0012

1796 - 1797

Durham Cathedral, from the South West

TG1079

1795

Durham Cathedral, from the River Wear

TG0228

1796 - 1797

Durham Cathedral, from the South West

TG1079

1796 - 1797

York Minster, from the South West

TG1047

1796 - 1797

The West Front of Jedburgh Abbey

TG1231