M. I. Glinka. Portrait by A. G. Goravsky, 1869.
The story of the creation of this painting has been revealed in these letters of Appolinary Goravsky to Pavel Tretyakov1.
June 9, 1869
St. Petersburg2
Most Esteemed Pavel Mikhaylovich!
<…> I visited the late Glinka’s sister about two weeks ago, and she gladly consented [to present to me] all the information she had, and told me his biography, and also showed me his portraits, of which, nonetheless, I could make the best of use of his photo… <…> In her album she has some of the best tints of Glinka’s life, the caricature sketches by Stepanov3, which she considers to be characteristic and to bear great resemblance, and allows me to look attentively at them.
I could gladly paint a portrait for the same price – if only I would not be hastened, but would be able to carry it out after returning from the summer season, in particular. I shall set myself to work at it and, of course, am willing to paint it in such a way as to make it appropriate for a gallery since in the summer I have a strong urge to practice painting natural landscapes <…> Could you please, take the trouble of letting me know about Glinka’s portrait? Maybe it needs to be exactly the same size as Dargomyzhsky’s4; in that case, I would need to be sent the size of the canvas. I forgot to measure it. <…>
October 22, 18695
Most Esteemed Pavel Mikhaylovich!
Please forgive me for not answering your letter with due haste, though I received it on October 10, the reason for which is as follows: respecting your request, a week after your departure I started working on the portrait of Glinka from that sole photograph which I had spoken to you about; even though it is not bad at all, but the half-tints on his head faded. I drew it with charcoal in an enlarged framework on my spare canvas and was already about to apply paint to it, when soon I received news from Glinka’s sister6, who remembered about the splendid unique daguerreotype portrait of Glinka made in 1852 at the height of his creativity and in his favorite constant suit –his dressing gown, in a long frock-coat with a velvet collar and cuffs, in a hat with a golden plume, and that one of her female relatives, an admirer of Glinka’s music, has preserved this daguerreotype as a relic and if it has been preserved, then she would try to obtain it and give it to me. Bearing this in mind, naturally, I refrained myself from starting working with paint. After a certain period of time she gladly sent me the aforementioned daguerreotype, at the same time expressing sorrow that it was spoiled from time. Upon receiving the package, I opened it up and retrieved the small portrait in a brown glass oval frame, looked at it intently and was barely able to discern the small face and one left arm; the situation was quite bad! I took a magnifying glass and started peering at it – and noticed that the entire portrait was covered with dust and mold; so, having waited until a sunny day arrived, I opened up the frame and, having taken out the plate, started dusting it with my sable brush; when all of a sudden a blithe man appeared with two beautiful, excellent arms.
You could not imagine my amazement and joy, since I had never had the occasion to see such a daguerreotype in my life; but what a delightful and intelligent head it was in his customary informal apparel; a sitting man with his left hand resting on the couch and his right pressed against his hip, with such a typical and expressive face, just calling to be painted on a canvas that, despite the fact that I had already begun my previous portrait, demonstrating the front of his face (made in [18]56), and notwithstanding the difficulty of looking intently at the glittering plate of the daguerreotype, I gladly set my preference for this picture and without hesitation I took a sponge with soapy water and washed away completely the work I had previously begun and set to work on the new painting; and so I am sending you a small sketch in which the subject mater is comprehensible and veritable, but you should not judge the expression of the face, since it was not worth augmenting the effort in a mere sketch. If you decide to come to Moscow soon, you will only see this portrait sketched and tinted with charcoal on canvas, identical in its size of the portrait of Metropolitan Golovinsky, or, to be precise, 1 arshin and 12 ½ vershoks in height, and 1 arshin and 5 ½ vershoks in width – in my opinion, it is not proper to paint the painting on any canvas smaller than that in is size. The scale was thought out very logically, as was the motive, and you can judge the painting quite adequately by this sketch. I am setting to work on this portrait with special enthusiasm, since the features are so favorable, the face of considerable breadth, its traits are most vivid, the moustache, the sideburns and the beard with grayness present are fit to be painted without much trouble, an intelligent and kind facial expression, which is amazingly handsome, and a velvet hat with golden embroidery and a hanging brush, without which he could not rest, is thrust on his noble forehead. In short, all the features are incomparable for being depicted in a painting, unwittingly giving the artist a taste for the work, and there can be no comparison with any features of photographs of Dargomyzhsky, reproduced on several postcards, with which I had to search for similarity. To avoid any misadventures with the daguerreotype of Glinka, I glued the plate into the folder under the thick glass of a mirror. The famous composer, Mikhail Ivanovich Glinka was born in 1804, on May 20, and passed away in 1857, on February 3 in Berlin, and by the personal order of the emperor the grave in Berlin was opened, and the remains of the deceased were transported to St. Petersburg and buried for the second time at the Aleksandr Nevsky Monastery. There is a tombstone monument with a bronze image of his profile bas-relief medallion. The photograph of the front of his face, which I wanted to use before, was taken in 1856, in the month of May, whereas the daguerreotype from which I am presently working was taken in 1852.
A bust was made from the photograph7, albeit, not a very successful one, and bearing little resemblance to him, so Glinka’s sister, who is his heir, did not wish to promote the sales of the busts and is keeping the form to herself, while the daguerreotype, forgotten and, essentially, blemished, – in addition, with his two arms mysteriously concealed – was never interpreted the right way, and could never be, due to its incoherence. This sudden opportunity fell on me, and my curiosity revealed a lively Glinka (of course, without any alteration, similar to the mirror of nature), which is what is valuable for an artist. Having this in possession, and having learned about the necessary color, I have no need of anything else except the efforts to carry out the work with the proper resemblance and with artistic gallery features. Glinka was 2 arshins and 4 vershoks tall, but his head and shoulders were quite large, and his face was rather wide. His hair was a dark chestnut color with streaks of gray, just like his sister. His eyes were dark gray, bordering on blue, and the color of his face was somewhat between swarthy and white, bordering on a sickly color. In short, the color of his face and eyes resembled that of his sister (a family trait). (I am picking out a male nature) Glinka did not to be painted or have his photographs taken, so his sister used to deceive him and take him for snapshots of daguerreotype and photographic portraits I have mentioned before. Karl Pavlovich Brullov (1799-1852) started painting him, but because the artist deemed his work unsuccessful, he destroyed it himself, and there remains only a profile sketched in watercolors as a caricature by Stepanov, which is preserved in the album of Mrs. Shestakova, née Glinka. Everything I needed has already been processed for me, so I do not need to worry about anything else, except for carrying out my work with God’s assistance, so that it would attract due attention of connoisseurs and lovers of art.
<…>
September 24, 1870
Post office St[ation] of Svisloch8
Most esteemed and revered Pavel Mikhaylovich!
<…> Despite the fact that I had very little time to myself, when I was in the countryside, but I was able to work on Glinka’s portrait, at least for a brief while and, dear Pavel Mikhaylovich, please forgive me that I cannot finish the portrait by the deadline designated by you9.
Whatever the case may be, I was thinking of displaying this art work together with the painting of the landscape. The subject of the painting requested by you is quite serious and very dear to me, which is why I must fulfill it as well as my strength and knowledge allows me to. Even though I tend to be slow in my work, I hope you will remain quite pleased. <…>
January 1871
St. Petersburg10
Most esteemed Pavel Mikhaylovich!
I have the honor of wishing you and your entire family a Happy New Year. I expected to extend my felicitations to you for the holidays in St. Petersburg in person, but, as it seems, your trip has been postponed until Shrove Week.
Glinka’s portrait was written entirely from life, with the composer being present at the sessions, and I crave with greatest pleasure the strictest comments from experts and physiognomists. When you arrive and see it, I hope that you will find it worthy of being put in a good frame, in which I consider it almost indispensable to paint the mask in detail once more à la prima. <…>
December 28, 1871
evening
St. Petersburg11
Most esteemed Pavel Mikhaylovich!
<…> Herewith I am informing you of your mistake, the amount of money punctually paid by you for the portraits of Bruni and Glinka12, which happened because of my careless assignation of the price without having looked into my computations that were thoroughly carried out and noted in my financial accounts and in a special notebook, namely this: when you made the request for remuneration for my work on Glinka and Bruni, it seemed to me that the money which you had sent me for the frames were received by me as advance payment for the paintings commissioned by you, and this is why I determined in haste the amount of money to be received from you: 350 for one and 400 for the other. Bearing in mind the time I spent working on the paining and the expenses I had to pay, as well as the higher expenses of life in St. Petersburg, I fixed the following sum in my financial accounts: 400 r[ubles] for the full-sized portrait of Bruni and 500 for that of Glinka. The figures you have presented, as they stand in my documents are: 350 for Bruni, while nothing has been written down for Glinka’s portrait – most likely, it has not been mentioned by you. Do not be angry with my, most honorable Pavel Mikhaylovich, for my frankness, which I submit to your kind consideration. However, these prices, speaking truthfully, are considerably less than the ones I have set, which I am not pursuing actively enough at the present time. <…>
February 14, 1872
in the morning13
Most esteemed Pavel Mikhaylovich!
I am making haste to inform you, considering it my duty, that three days ago in the Academy there was a committee, and the choice of art works to be sent to the London World Fair was made14, and since I received in my apartment [the painting] that was sent to me to demonstrate to the Council one of my best works, thus, in expectation of seeing you in person very soon, I decided to send you by means of the official carriers dispatched from the Academy the portrait of Feodor Ant[onovich] Bruni, which the Council of the Academy in the presence of Vladimir Aleksandrovich15 had authorized to bring to London.< …>
I hope you would not be angry for this arrangement proposed by me, since I remember your words that the portrait of Bruni was not as important for your collection as the portrait of Glinka, so I hesitated to send Glinka’s portrait to the Academy, having remembered that the spot over your grand piano at your abode has been expecting this aforementioned portrait for a long period of time.
. <…>
April 20, 1872
St. Petersburg16
Most esteemed Pavel Mikhaylovich!
Christ has Risen!!!
I have the honor of offering my felicitations to you and your entire family, highly esteemed by me, for the upcoming Easter holidays, the Holy Resurrection of Christ, and wish you good health and happiness, and to have a merry time in the circle of your family and good acquaintances. <…>
At the large <…> academic exhibition there were so many [works of art – E.G.] that there was no room to place them on the first floor, so upon the order of the G[rand] D[uke] Vladimir Aleks[androvich] the Council made the decision to leave the best works, pertaining to numbers 1 and 2, on the first floor in two rooms, and to take the more mediocre works upstairs, to the hall with the lights from above. <…>
In regard to my art works, we have to wait for the end of all the discourses and diverse comments. Presently there are so many different opinions expressed by the art connoisseurs in the assemblies of artistic clubs17, students’ gatherings and academic meetings on Saturdays, that of all the portraits, those of Glinka and the little Count [A.L.] Sheremetyev, as well as one painted by Sherwood18 are considered to be the best. <…>
The editor F. I. Iordan19 told me that he wishes to display Glinka’s portrait at the International Fair in Vienna in 1873, to which I answered that this will depend entirely on its owner, P.M. Tretyakov, and that for now I cannot decide or determine anything by myself. <…>
June 24, 1872 1872
Uborki village20
Most esteemed Pavel Mikhaylovich!
I received your letter on May 30, when I was still in St. Petersburg, and I am answering it from the countryside. <…>
In regards rash mistake I made about the sum of money obtained from you I have previously written you in great detail and with all frankness as a friend, and hardly wishing to take advantage of the increase of price unfoundedly, but presenting my mistake to your good discretion, and I stand by my opinion even at the present moment, since that letter was written without the assistance of any councilors or mercenary bargainers from the outside, and likewise I have not asked any testimony of the admirers or followers of Glinka, and even had they valued the painting as being three times more expensive, they would still hardly alter my conviction. It is because the true buyer and appraiser is the one who pays meticulously in practice, and not one who promises a large price merely in words. Moreover, if I had really felt in my heart that I my work had been evaluated poorly, I would, nonetheless, always with the fullest conviction and gratitude rather receive half of the price from you than the full amount from someone else. It is because you are the only person among all of us who promotes and encourages the work of talented artists, who are my brothers in spirit. Herein I feel that I am receiving my reward, whereas my gratitude, respect and veneration of your person are sincere in my unchanged feelings for you forever. <…>
For the present, it has not been possible to determine how and when Glinka’s portrait was acquired by the Moscow Conservatory.
1 See: Pis’ma khudozhnikov Pavlu Mikhaylovichu Tretyakovu [Letters of Artists to Pavel Mikhaylovich Tretyakov] Moscow: “Iskusstvo” State Publishing House. Vol. 1. 1960; Vol. 2. 1968. In volume 1 the letters were prepared for publication and annotated by employees of the State Tretyakov Gallery, N.G. Galkina and M.N. Grigoryeva, in volume 2 they were joined by N.L. Priymak. All the peculiarities of spelling and punctuation, characteristic for this publication have been preserved; the publication hence forward shall be called shortly: “Pis’ma” [Letters].
2 “Pis’ma” [Letters] Vol. 1. p. 244–245.
3 The caricature portraits of Nikolay Aleksandrovich Stepanov (1807-1877).
4 A.G. Goravsky wrote the portrait of A.S. Dargomyzhsky (1813-1869) upon the commission of P.M. Tretyakov in March-April 1869. See: “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 1. p. 229-230, 232, 234. The subsequent fate of the portrait is unknown.. See: “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. p. 445.
5 “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 1. p. 261-263.
6L.I. Shestakova.
7 Obviously, Goravsky has in mind the bust of M.I. Glinka made by sculptor Feodor Feodorovich Kamensky (1836-1913). “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 1. p. 346.
8 “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. p. 25-26. Svisloch was a post office station in the Moscow province. See: “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. p. 86.
9 In the annotations to the letters it is emphasized that “Gorchakov painted Glinka’s portrait with great difficulty, and, having submitted it to Tretyakov in 1869, he took it back from him to add finishing touches to it, having completed it in 1871». (“Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. p. 434-435).
10 “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. p. 38-39.
11 “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. p. 60-61.
12 “It is impossible to establish the sum that was set for each of the portraits, since the list with the indication of the sums paid for the paintings by Tretyakov bears the inscription: in 1871-1872 “875 to Goravsky.” Obviously, this presents the price of these portraits, since during those years Tretyakov did not acquire anything else from Goravsky.” (“Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. Annotations. p. 445).
13 “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. p.67.
14 “Russia took part in the International Exhibition in London for the first time in 1862. in 1872, upon the request of Tsar Aleksandr II, the Academy for the Arts once again took part in the London exhibition (in Kensington)”. (“Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. Annotations. p. 447).
15 The President of the Council of the Academy, Grand Duke (note by E.G.).
16 “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. p. 73–75.
17 “The meetings of the artists took place on Fridays at the Artistic Club, which existed from 1863 to 1877 in St. Petersburg” (“Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. Annotations. p. 450).
18 Sherwood, Vladimir Osipovich (1832-1897) was a portraitist, sculptor and architect (see: “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. Annotations. p. 451).
19 Iordan, Feodor Ivanovich (1800–1883) was an engraver. From 1871 he was the rector of classes of painting and sculpture at the Academy of the Arts (see: “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. Annotations. p. 451).
20 “Pis’ma” [Letters]. Vol. 2. p. 84-86.
