Thomas Bodkin at the National Gallery of Ireland

Irish Arts Review

Thomas Bodkin at the National Gallery of IrelandAuthor(s): Anne KellySource: Irish Arts Review Yearbook, (1991/1992), pp. 171-180Published by: Irish Arts ReviewStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20492687 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 22:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Arts Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Irish Arts ReviewYearbook.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.162 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 22:41:23 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iar

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20492687?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


IRISH ARTS REVIEW

THOMAS BODKIN AT THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF IRELAND

Estella Solomons, Thomas Bodkin. Sligo County Museum.

Thomas Bodkin, described by his friend Arnold Bennett in 1922 as 'husband,

father, painter, writer, connoisseur, gover nor, barrister and bureaucrat' 1 added to these accomplishments the title Director of the National Gallery of Ireland. Born in Dublin in 1887 to Matthias McDon nell Bodkin, one of an old Galway 'Tribes' family and Arabella Norman, Bodkin was one of six children. His considerable liter ary and oratorical skills were inherited from his father who began his career as a junior reporter with the Freeman's Journal before becoming a barrister in 1877. Following a period as a National Party MP and a literary career, which included leader-writing on the Freeman's Journal and novel and short-story writing, Mat thias Bodkin was appointed a County

Court judge for Clare in 1908, a position he held until his retirement in 1922. His

'I have done something for the cause of art in Ireland by going

into exile'. The achievements and vicissitudes of Thomas

Bodkin's years as Director of the National Gallery are described

by Anne Kelly.

son initially followed his father's foot steps in a law career after his education at Belvedere and at Clongowes Wood. He graduated from The Royal University of Ireland in 1908, and was called to the Bar in 1911 where he practised for five years before joining the Commission for Charitable Donations and Bequests. He married Aileen Cox in 1916 and, in 1917, became a Governor and Guardian of the National Gallery. The appreciation of art which began as a hobby was to find an

outlet at the Gallery, first at Board level where he played an active role, and finally as Director in 1927.

Bodkin's period as Governor coincided, variously with that of WB Yeats, Sir John Lavery, Sarah Purser, Alec Martin and Dermod O'Brien. Acerbic, clever, mani pulative, Bodkin made his presence felt from the beginning and inspired few neutral feelings. In 1921 during his first term of office on the Board he challenged the right of the Director to leave the country to see certain collections in England and Italy.2 The Director's job was part-time and it tended to be occupi ed by connoisseurs and collectors - notably by Hugh Lane from 1914 to 1915. Lane's knowledge and flair which brought outstanding benefit to the Gallery through gift and bequest were developed by his dealing activities. Robert Langton

-171



IRISH ARTS REVIEW


Douglas, Director from 1916 to 1923 was a dealer who travelled widely during his term of office. Under Gallery Bye Law 9, the Director was obliged to live in Ireland for at least 120 days each year and could not be absent from the Gallery for a period longer than three months without Board permission.. Following Bodkin's demand for a 'detailed written return of the Director's attendance at the Gallery' to be laid before the Board, Langton

Douglas had to outline the number of days he spent in Ireland. In spite of these warnings, in 1923 Langton Douglas in formed the Board that he was going to the

United States to raise funds for purchases for the Gallery. This involved missing a Board meeting and although he pleaded

(executive authority in an emergency',3

the Board placed on record that his action was irregular and without authority. This period was a contentious one, with charges that Board minutes were tampered with, and it ended in the resignation of the Director to pursue his own interests. In spite of the obvious acrimony, at his last meeting Langton Douglas made a gift to the Gallery of a Brazilian landscape by Frans Post,4 and continued to offer pictures for sale and to deal amicably with subsequent Directors, including Bodkin. One of the Governors, the architect Lucius O'Callaghan, replac ed Langton Douglas, with the Board split on the appointment and Bodkin suppor ting another candidate.5 The affairs of the Gallery had low priority during the early 1920s, and it was closed to the public for a period during the Civil War. The suggestion was made in 1922 that Gallery loans to public institutions such as the

Vice-Regal Lodge should be recalled.6 Board meetings were postponed 'owing to the state of war'7, and the Gallery building was damaged by gunfire. How ever in 1924 the Minister for Home Af fairs said that there were no longer any

military considerations to interfere with re-opening to the public.8

Bodkin was active on sub-committees of the Board and in relation to the Lane Fund, established on 17 January 1922. He described himself as a 'close personal friend' of Hugh Lane and he was assoc iated with Lane in the foundation of the

Municipal Gallery. Lane wrote of him: 'but for a few like yourself I would have taken my pictures from Dublin long ago'.9

The Lane Fund was the only non-voted Fund administered by the Board from

Hugh Lane's will dated 11 October 1913, which directed that 'the revenue' from investments be spent on buying pictures by deceased Masters of recognised merit. The Department of Finance tried to get control of the Fund in 1926, and this resulted in the enactment of special Bye Laws by the Board to ensure that the in come from investments would remain in the hands of the Board for the benefit of the collection.'0 This was essential in view of the limited funding available from government. In February 1927 Lucius O'Callaghan resigned, although he was nominated to the Board by WB Yeats who regretted losing him as Director." The post was advertised in the Irish news papers and in The Times and The Burl ington Magazine in London, and following pressure from the Board to become a can didate, Bodkin was appointed unani mously on 1 June 1927. He continued as Secretary of the Commissioners of Charit able Donations and Bequests because the job at the Gallery remained part-time and he was obliged to get the consent of the

Ministers of Justice and Finance before he could apply for the Directorship. In effect, the day-to-day running of the

Gallery was in the hands of the Registrar, Brinsley MacNamara. Bodkin's period at the Gallery coincided nationally with severe economic depression and it was characterised by financial stringency and watchfulness on the part of government. Although he regarded his position as equivalent to a Departmental head in

the Civil Service, his travelling expenses were frequently queried, and he was oblig ed to provide the Department of Finance with information on the purpose of his journeys in advance. He had to negotiate for secretarial services and the Depart

ment finally agreed that it was 'prepared to give you the services of a shorthand typist on the occasions when a specially large amount of shorthand typing has to be done at the Gallery'."2 His duties were not strictly defined but he later described the Director's role as a full time one to advise on the selection of pictures and have responsibility for the arrangement, description and conservation of the National Collection. He was aware of the

'cultural opportunities' afforded by the Collection, both for educational pur poses and for attracting visitors from abroad. This had commercial benefit as well as enhancing the reputation, honour and dignity of the State."3 The right publicity for the Gallery could only be attained through the erudition, research, writtings and teaching of technical staff. Bodkin's view was not a static academic one however, but one in which the Gal lery had the potential to play a mean ingful role in Irish life. But in such views

he was ahead of his time in the Ireland of the 1920s and 1930s.

Bodkin's own decisive personality and strong views were likely to cause problems in the running of the Gallery. His greatest loyalties were to the Catholic Church and to Ireland, but his Ireland was one which

would not have been recognised outside the better off Dublin world of good taste and refinement, and his Catholicism did not mean he approved of the Academy of Christian Art.'4 In 1928, early in his term of office, he was embroiled in a con troversy over the use of Irish at the

Gallery. Bodkin had little sympathy for the language, something which cost him dearly in later years when the Arts Coun cil was being established."5 A letter appeared in the press on the antagonism to the Gaelic movement exhibited by the absence of bilingual descriptions of pic tures. Bodkin replied that such a practice

would do little to help in disseminating Irish culture. 'To translate for example Baldassare Castiglione by Tiziano Vacellio, or Antonio Ciocchi del Monte Sanso vino by Sebastiano del Piombo into Irish would seem to call for scholarship of an unusual kind and to use it to little pur pose. '6 There was also a suggestion from

Thomas Bodkin, No 3 Wilton Terrace, home of the Bodkin family 1917 -35. Watercolour.

Collection Mrs Patrick Jameson. In the left-hand window is a Harry Clarke panel; Bodkin and his wife are in the foreground and Irish and Papal flags fly at the door.

-172



IRISH ARTS REVIEW

, t i M O t g N ' H E g i 0 N t 6 tt E ' r' t A V V P p4~~~~~~~~~~~'n

r 4 7 .t<

Conradh na Gaeilge that the Gallery should be identified by its Irish name on the building, to which Bodkin replied dis ingenuously that he could find nothing in the records to indicate that in the first quarter century of the Gallery's existence objections had been raised to the form of the title above the main entrance. This

was carved in stone and would be impossi ble to alter without great trouble and ex pense. Indeed, adding the title in Irish would involve rebuilding part of the facade, he said. However, the Gallery had to comply with the Provisional Government's requirement that station ery 'be headed distinctively in the Irish language.17

Bodkin had resigned from the Board on his appointment as Director but he con tinued to attend meetings and to have a voice without a vote. One of his first acts was significant and indicates his desire to determine purchasing policy and a strong position for the Director. He proposed a change to Bye Law 16 on the powers of the Director in relation to purchases. This resulted in an increase in his purchasing power from a limit of ?500 to ?1,500 with out reference to the Board, with not more than ?500 of any individual purchase to come from the grant-in-aid. He also quickly introduced the question of his dual role-buying for the Gallery and buying for himself. Bodkin had a keen eye and had been collecting for many years before his appointment. In 1919 Arnold Bennett wrote: 'Bodkin is acquiring fine pictures for songs. Fancy getting a Diaz in Belfast for a song. He has a magnificent Bloemart and a Domenico Feti. And he knows a deuce of a lot.?8 At a Board meeting on 4 April 1928 Bodkin produc ed a small picture by Abraham Begeign which he himself had bought for ?7.10s.'9 In his view this was not the kind of picture which the Board should ac quire, although it was a cheap and not uninteresting work, in good condition by a minor master represented in such gal leries as the Louvre and the Kaiser Friedrich Museum. Begeign was not re presented in the Gallery collection. Bodkin then pointed out that he was under no obligation to purchase pictures for the Board which were not submitted to him as the Board's representative or offered at sales he attended in his official capacity at State expense, or by dealers he visited in the same circumstances. He assured the Board that he would always

buy or submit to the Board any picture of real merit by a master who should be, or was not adequately represented in the Gallery, no matter what its value, how ever small the price or circumstances in which it was offered. If, however, he was offered in his private capacity a fine pic ture by a master already represented by similar work in the Gallery he considered himself at full liberty to acquire such a picture for his own collection. The Board agreed to this, with some reservation and trusted the Director's 'discretion and sense of duty.20 At the same time Bodkin presented a work by Claesz Dirckz van der Hecke which he had undertaken to pur chase for his own collection if the Board refused to accept his recommendation that they should do so. The Board accept ed this picture and refused the Begeign.

This was undoubtedly a test case for Bodkin, the question of his personal pur chasing being less important than esta blishing a strong position in relation to the Board. The outcome indicates the power of his personality and his deter mination to set the agenda and to clarify his own position in relation to purchas ing. For Bodkin, a strong (even autocratic)

Director supported by a good Board had the best chance of raising a Gallery from

mediocrity to greatness. For him Henry Doyle had been the National Gallery's greatest Director, excluding Hugh Lane's short directorship. Doyle's bachelor status allowed him time to devote to his duties and this, combined with his friendship

with the then Viscount Powerscourt who dominated the Board, allowed him to make excellent purchases.2' Bodkin did not favour purchase by committee be cause this led to compromise, half-hearted decisions and delay in decision-making in an area where speed was essential. The role of the governing committee should be to determine broad policy issues such as, for example, developing a particular school of painting or increasing the number of portraits in a collection. But purchasing was for the Director: 'A direc tor should be given as free a hand as possi

,ble and if he makes too many mistakes, or even one serious avoidable mistake, he should be dismissed.'22 Such harsh terms of employment could be compensated for by paying the Director an adequate salary and guaranteeing him a good pension, conditions Bodkin never considered he had at the National Gallery.

Having determined what he felt was a good working relationship, Bodkin had few difficulties with his Board and he also established a strong position on Board appointments. It was suggested by the

Minister for Education that Bodkin should nominate suitable persons for recommendation by him to the Executive Council.23 This he refused to do formally because of the invidious position it would place him in as a Board appointee. How ever, he complied informally and used the opportunity to ask the Minister to make it clear that the appointments were for the statutory period of five years only. The general practice was to regard appoint

ments as virtually for life, and it was fre quently difficult to get the necessary quorum of nine members for the purchase of pictures. Members such as John Lavery and Alec Martin, Christie's expert, at tended infrequently. For Bodkin, the statutory period in office was sufficient and it brought the Gallery into line with similar institutions abroad such as the

National Gallery in London which pre cluded the holding of office for more than five years consecutively. In Dublin, mem bers had 'occasionally outlived their in terest in the Gallery and their utility as

Governors and Guardians' and 'it would seem to be desirable to interest as many

members of the public as possible in the management of the Gallery by enabling them to serve for a period upon the

Board.'24 When a vacancy arose, Sir Robert Wood's name was informally sug gested by Bodkin, and he was appointed

Thomas Bodkin, Portrait of T.B. Collection Mrs Patrick Jameson. This caricature

of himself as Rip van Winkle indicates the bureaucratic tedium of his time

at the National Gallery of Ireland.

-173



IRISH ARTS REVIEW


in June 1929; and following the death of Lord Cloncurry in August that year, Dr Denis Coffey, President of UCD was ap pointed. Bodkin's knowledge of the art world, and his shrewd purchasing abilities impressed the Board, and he was generally given his head in Gallery affairs. In 1931 he wrote that since his appointment the Board had 'never run counter to my ad vice'.25 However, when accused in later years of bossing the Trustees he strenuous ly denied it. To the charge 'everybody knows you boss the Trustees and in fact every committee you are on'26 Bodkin replied: 'I have neither the power nor the desire to boss anyone except possibly the younger members of my own family.'

The Gallery operated with few re sources from government in the 1920s and 1930s. A part-time Director, full-time Registrar and eleven attendants consti tuted the staff. Bodkin travelled widely, 'dealer crawling and gallery hunting'27 something he obviously enjoyed in spite of the financial constraints imposed by the Department of Finance. While in

London he stayed at The Berners Hotel and often spent his evenings at the Burl ington Fine Arts Club or with friends, like Alec Martin or W G Constable,

Director of the Courtauld Institute and his wife Olivia, or George Moore. In Paris he visited dealers, and in Spain he longed to have 'some kindred spirit with me' to share his enjoyment of 'marvellous things! He witnessed 'some amazing dances' at the Madrid Arts Club. 'I was almost as thrilled by them as by El

Greco-though in quite a different way.'28 In the Director's absence, the Registrar,

Brinsley MacNamara, administered the Gallery without clerical support. A man of letters, he was not strong on figures and the Auditor-General complained in 1929 of having 'a good deal of trouble' with the Gallery Account. Not only did it not balance but 'it was full of inaccuracies'. It took the Auditor General's staff three days to work out and disentangle the fi gures, which they said was not their job and they were not called on to provide this service for any other Account submit ted.29 Not surprisingly, a suggestion by the Department of Finance that the Secretary at the Department of Educa tion should act as Accounting Officer was not acceptable to the Board. However, things improved subsequently and, in 1932, Bodkin was informed that general accounting procedure at the National

Gallery was 'quite satisfactory'30. The problem of scarce resources was

compounded by constant difficulties with attendant staff. Following a ruling by the Executive Council, first preference for employment in the public service had to be given to ex-members of the Defence Forces suffering from disablement result ing from their military service. This ap

plied to the National Gallery attendants and politicians frequently put forward names of constituents who fitted this category. Candidates were also supplied by the Department of Industry and Com merce and many were unfit for work and in poor circumstances. Bodkin had strong views on the type of attendant suitable for Gallery work and he expected higher than average intelligence, a good level of education and, rather optimistically, some knowledge of the history of art. 'They should be neat with their fingers

and not suffer from any physical disability which would make them unfit for the duty of moving most valuable and occasionally heavy pictures.'3' When one disabled ex soldier complained that his application for a job was rejected, the Department of Finance wrote and queried Bodkin's deci sion. Bodkin replied that he could not employ the man because of the disability of his arm. The level of bureaucratic vigi lance is indicated also by the department al response to a request for caps for the attendants. Bodkin paid a lot of attention to detail and his frustration can be im

agined when his request for thirteen uni form caps was queried on the grounds that there were only eleven attendants. The extra caps were for the floorman and the furnaceman who sometimes did duty in the Gallery. The Department wanted to abolish all caps but Bodkin was strict on such matters:32 'Caps help to give the

men the appearance of tidyness and

authority' and uniformed attendants were essential for maintaining order in the Gallery. But, when the Department of Finance queried the difference, he had to make do with 'jacket suits' like those

worn at the Museum rather than the 'frock suits' which he preferred.33 What disorder can have been anticipat

ed in such an atmosphere is hard to ima gine. Art student attendance was poor, declining to twenty-three in 1933, indi cating 'depressing apathy to the lessons to be learned from the achievements of the

Old Masters'34. Much time was taken up in dealing with correspondents who want

ed their pictures valued, and the multi plicity and variety of these enquiries indicates the difficult economic times.

Bodkin usually replied that he was pre cluded by his official position from giving advice to private owners on the authority or value of works of art. However, if the owner offered a picture for purchase to the Board stating the lowest price that would be acceptable, the Director would inform if in his opinion the Board would consider acquiring the work. There is no evidence that pictures were acquired in this way.

Most people had their hopes dashed and Bodkin did not mince words when return ing a work. To one such hopeful he return ed a picture with the opinion that it was not 'of the slightest interest or value.'35 If pictures were not offered for sale he usually refused to express his opinion on them, even when the request was from Lady Gregory.36 He broke the rule occa sionally. When a priest, Father Killian,

wanted an opinion: 'If the pictures chanced to be in Bulls . . . I might look at them by an accident and say if they de served further opinion.'37 The Gallery received many offers to purchase pictures of Irish national significance. There seems to have been no shortage of souvenirs of Daniel O'Connell-busts, engraving, miniatures, even a silk sash said to have been worn by O'Connell.

Most were rejected on the grounds that Daniel O'Connell was already well represented in the Collection. Not everyone wanted to sell however. One woman from County Clare wanted to know if she could purchase a picture to suit a particular size of frame: 'Would you kindly let me know if you would have a picture to fit frame face seventeen and a half inches high and twenty-four inches wide. Irish scenery or something. Please say price and oblige.'38 Matters of cleaning and restoration of

pictures were also referred to the Gallery. It was Bodkin's view that there was no one

with a high enough level of skills and expertise in restoration in Dublin and he would not entrust an important picture for treatment to any Irish cleaners. Gal lery work was referred to two London firms-W A Holder of Bruton Street, and Horace Buttery - and Bodkin usually advised enquirers in confidence to do the same. If pictures were not especially valu able, which was his view of those at the

Nunciature, he recommended Daniel Egan, an Irish restorer who although

-174



IRISH ARTS REVIEW


not 'an expert in the full sense' could do the work.39 Even in this specialist area Bodkin had to defend his right to use his professional judgement when it was suggested that to curtail expenditure, departmental authority must be got before sending pictures for restoration. 'One does not employ the surgeon who tenders the lowest estimate for an operation of particular importance' was Bodkin's re tort.40 Some Gallery pictures were restor ed in European galleries. Good personal relations between the Directors meant that the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam re stored The Halt by Jacob van Ruisdael and

Thomas de Keyser at a cost limited to the materials needed.41

The development of good relationships with colleagues was important to Bodkin and these he cultivated through his fre quent trips abroad, through developing his academic role in the history of art community, and through Gallery loans. An important early development in which Bodkin was instrumental related to legislation to enable the Gallery to lend pictures. Problems regarding lending had been highlighted by Bodkin's predecessor. O'Callaghan had been 'pulled up'42 over lending a picture, and the opinion of the

Attorney General was obtained-which was that the Board had no power to lend. Bodkin pressed for legislation because, while the Gallery was in a position to con tribute important works to such exhi bitions as the Flemish Exhibition at Burlington House, the Gainsborough Bi-Centenary Exhibition at Ipswich and the Goya Exhibition in Madrid, they were unable to do so. This, for Bodkin, created a bad impression of the National Gallery. Legislation was prepared and the Nation al Gallery of Ireland Bill 1928 received the King's assent on 30 July 1928. The Bill authorises the Governors and Guardians (to hold public exhibitions of pictures selected by them from the pictures in the

National Gallery of Ireland which belong to the said Governors and Guardians, and to lend them for exhibitions inside or out side Saorstat Eireann.'43 The National

Gallery is rich in Dutch masters of the seventeenth century and, following the legislation, was able to lend to an impor tant Dutch exhibition in London in 1929.

However, the catalogue, when listing Governments who lent to the exhibition, did not refer to the Irish Free State Loan, and Bodkin demanded that this unfortun ate error be corrected in future editions.

He pointed out that the Government had drafted a special Bill to authorise the loan and had gone 'out of their way' to facili tate prompt passage of the Bill. 'Even then some of my Board were restive about lending pictures to England.'44 The Gal lery was more fortunate when lending five pictures to the Exhibition of Italian Art at Burlington House in 1929. Here 'the generosity of the Irish Free State who have altered the laws to make their con tribution' was acknowledged by Sir

Austin Chamberlain MP following Bodkin's intercession with Lady Cham berlain.45 Lending to prestigious exhibi tions was important for Bodkin because it raised the international profile of the

Gallery. It had the effect of making a good impression and creating a favourable climate in Britain on a subject close to Bodkin's heart-Ireland's claim to the Lane pictures.

The proposal for a history of the Lane pictures came from President Cosgrave to Bodkin in 1931.46 Bodkin admired

Cosgrave and corresponded frequently with him and provided him with draft speeches on the arts in Ireland, including the issue of the Lane pictures. The Presi dent asked to be informed of 'anything helpful' during Bodkin's visit to London in 1930 for the Italian exhibition.47 The

Lane book was to be published by Pegasus Press in Paris, and Bodkin was commis sioned to produce 30,000 words within nine months for a fee of ?200, and ?100 costs.48 He employed his own 'steno grapher' who had done his personal work for sixteen years, and it took six months of arguments with the Department of Fin ance before costs were agreed.49 Four hundred copies were ordered, bound in green morocco, with the Brian Boru harp gilded on the spine. A supplementary estimate was possessed to cover the ex penditure, the book was completed on schedule and Bodkin demanded no extra payment for an additional 10,000 words. The President expressed his delight at the outcome and Sir John Lavery described it as a 'magnificent tribute to the memory of

Hugh Lane-than which nothing could be more perfect-from the President and Government of Saorstat Eireann. Like many who will read it I can't keep back a

feeling of remorse when the memory of the past is brought home and thoughts of

what might have been done-the old old story, Hazel joins me in congratulations and joy ...'.0 Not everyone approved,

however. Dublin Corporation passed an unanimous vote of censure on Bodkin and his book.5 The entire edition was reserv ed by the Government and the many orders received by Bodkin at the Gallery were referred to the President's Office.

Bodkin's considerable literary flair is evident in this and other publications. The Approach to Painting was first publish ed in 1927 and Arnold Bennett, who re viewed it, wrote: 'Its author . . . knows painting from the inside. He understands the creative processes, an assertion which can be made of few critics of art and few critics of literature. He writes admirably: he has a wide and detailed historical knowledge of his subject, which know ledge does not encumber his style?'52 He published a catalogue for the Gallery in 1932, and nothing would have pleased him more than to be able to devote time to writing and lecturing on history of art topics. He was Honorary Professor of the

History of Art at Trinity College but gave few lectures. In 1928 he gave four Herm ione Lectures at Alexandra College and over the years lectured at many univer sities including those in Berlin, Liege, Leiden and at the Courtauld Institute. He represented the Government and read two papers-one in French-at the 12th

Congress of the History of Art in Brussels in 1930-'I need to prepare my impromptu remarks with the greatest deliberation'53, and attended the 13th Congress in 1933. He contributed to art journals such as T he Burlington Magazine but he frequently lamented that because of lack of staff and the multiplicity of his duties he had little time to devote to writing and research.

Academic pursuits undoubtedly attract ed Bodkin but the interest that gave him most pleasure and satisfaction was the cut and thrust of life with art dealers and at the auction room. His skills were such that Arnold Bennett and other friends, including L J O'Connor and Jack

McCann wanted to set him up as a dealer 'a la Hugh Lane.'54 Although the pro

posal came from his friends, it was a real istic business proposition but it was rejected by Bodkin. His first purchase for the National Gallery was Pieter Lastman's Joseph selling Corn in Egypt dated 1612-'the picture which Rem brandt copied in a careful drawing now in the Albertina.'55 Following the Gallery

Bye Law change he used his powers exten sively and, in December 1928, made one of his most important purchases. This was

-175 -



IRISH ARTS REVIEW


Pieter Brueghel the Younger's The Peasant Wedding purchased for ?1,200 through

the Lane Fund. In the following year he was on the trail of 'a miraculous small Greco which a convent has got permis sion to sell.'56 Shortage of cash meant that Bodkin could offer only a down pay

ment and he was authorised by the Board to go ahead on this basis, 'if after in spection he considered such purchase desirable.517 However the vendors were not prepared to wait and sold to a cash purchaser. He bought Jan Siberechts' The Farm Cart on his own responsibility through the Lane Fund, and from 1930 onwards showed an interest in the Impres sionists. He did not succeed in buying a

Matisse although he saw two that he liked and he also tried to buy a Manet. The Board sanctioned the purchase of a Sisley landscape which fell through following an attempt to negotiate on price, but The Loing Canal at St. Mammes was purchased in 1934. For this and the Delacroix

Demosthenes by the Sea Shore, also bought in 1934, Bodkin received the congratula tions of the man who was to succeed him at the Gallery. Thomas McGreevy, who spent many years in Paris, felt that with these acquisitions Bodkin was 'beginning the nucleus of a national collection of

modern French pictures'.58 He was less enthusiastic about the Forain purchased the same year. Bodkin made many other successful

purchases, including some important Irish pictures, but he regarded his 'great est bargain' to be Pietro Perugino's Pieta. The last great altarpiece of Perugino to remain in private hands, it was bought at

Christie's for ?3,990 on 12 June 1931, with almost all the purchase price coming from the Lane Fund. It came from the collection of Sir Christopher Sykes of Sledmore, Yorkshire whose ancestor bought it at the famous Orleans sale held in the Lyceum in the Strand in 1798, after the execution of the notorious 'Philippe

Egalit&'. The head of the Virgin had been damaged by the revolutionary mob but the picture remained a masterpiece. The purchase was made possible because of the recession in Britain at the time, and the underbidder to Bodkin was the Rus sian bass Chaliapin.59 The Board viewed the purchase and Bodkin reported to Alec

Martin (who was at Christie's at the time and probably alerted Bodkin): 'you would imagine from the pleasure and pride of some of them that they had painted the

thing themselves.'60 The picture went on show for the first time to invited guests on 28 November 1931 with another pur chase by del Biondi. Bodkin instigated the practice of putting recent acquisi tions on exhibition each year. The Presi dent or Vice-President generally opened the exhibition and Bodkin provided the text for the opening address.

By 1933 purchasing policy reflected the political and economic times: 'We sel dom buy anything that is not of quite outstanding importance or of national interest to Ireland6' A change of Govern

ment in 1932 removed Bodkin's ally, President Cosgrave, and introduced a Fianna Fail Government with which Bodkin had little sympathy. Although not 'party political', his admiration for Cosgrave allowed him to make a 'con fidential' subscription to Cumann na nGael in 1927.62 However, an ally as head of government was not sufficient to improve conditions at the Gallery, or to assist Bodkin through the bureaucratic maze. The 'difficulties' which induced the resignation of the previous Director in tensified during Bodkin's term of office.

Of prime significance was the 'tendency to scrutinize too minutely the various accounts of the Gallery's expenditure.&63 Even the pennies collected from the lava tories (amounting to ?2.9s8d in 1932) had to be returned to the Exchequer. An atmosphere of suspicion prevailed and in these circumstances it is difficult to see how progress was to be made in relation to two major areas of concern to Bodkin - an extension to house the growing collec tion, and the re-organisation of Gallery administration-a euphemism for a full time job for Bodkin and more staff.

Bodkin submitted a memorandum on Gallery accommodation for the Board's consideration in July 1929 which stressed the importance of the immediate provi sion for an extension.64 The previous extension had been built in 1903, and the Lane and Hone bequests had increas ed pressure on space. The acquisition of some or all of the property between the Gallery and Clare Street was what

Bodkin had in mind, and his proposal had the unanimous approval of the Board and

was sent to the Office of Public Works for consideration.65 In spite of continuous requests the only proposal forthcoming

was one to re-house part of the collection at the Vice-Regal Lodge.66 The Presi dent's Department had asked the OPW to

give its views on the use of the Lodge and demesne and it was suggested that a picture gallery or a combination of a gallery with a museum might be appro priate. A special meeting Qf the Board opposed the division of the Collection as 'largely destructive of its interests or

utility,'67 and the building as unsuitable for exhibition purposes. However, the

Gallery continued to lend pictures 'of an unimportant type' for furnishing the Lodge. The best that could be achieved for the Gallery in terms of space was the provision of storage racks for the base ment and even these were not installed until Bodkin had resigned.

Action on administration was an even more protracted affair and the outcome just as predictable. The first report on the organisation of the Gallery was submitted by Bodkin to the Board in October 1931. He had circulated international galleries with a questionnaire on such issues as their size, financial and staff resources, salaries and lecture provision, and his research indicated that the administra tion costs of the National Gallery were extremely low compared with other similar galleries abroad.68 The survey provided interesting and useful com parative information which Bodkin used when he and a deputation from the Board met President Cosgrave and the Minister for Education in December 1931. In an hour long meeting, the deputation pro posed that the Director's job should be full time, and that a keeper/accounting officer, a technical assistant and other support staff should be appointed. The provision of a lecture budget was also re quested. However, in spite of an eloquent plea on behalf of the Gallery, the deputa tion was informed that there was no pro spect of increasing expenditure. In fact the likelihood was that the Government

would be forced to curtail the Gallery grant as might be the case in other sub sidised institutions. The President pro vided figures showing that 'sweeping economies would be necessary.' Minister ial salaries, teachers, perhaps judges, gardai, possibly the army -all would have to be reduced. The President urged that it

might be wiser to withdraw the request than let it go to the Ministry of Finance

where it would most certainly be block ed-either a reflection of the nature of political power at the time or a neat shift ing of political responsibility. Bodkin's disappointment must have been intense,

-176



IRISH ARTS REVIEW


although in the following years he and the Trustees continued to press for im proved conditions. Another deputation was received unwillingly by the Minister for Education in July 1934 and had a (patient hearing' They again urged for

changes in the administration of the Gallery 'for the sake of the country's credit and to enable that great national institution to render the educational ser vice to the Irish people which was the original object of its foundation.'70 This time the Department of Finance had pro duced their own figures to indicate that the Gallery was in line with other institu tions abroad, but far worse was to follow.

Bodkin's duties at the Commissioners were 'comparatively slight' and this should allow him to devote the greater part of his time to the Gallery. The

Minister had been 'most gravely misin formed' on the matter, said Bodkin, who considered himself to be overworked at the Commissioners.7" His account of the

meeting is one of humiliation in which the role of the Director of the National

Gallery is fundamentally reduced. Follow ing this exchange, and although 'careful consideration' of the proposal for re organisation was promised by the Mini ster for Education, Bodkin's position at the Gallery was no longer tenable. On 14

December he informed the Board that he was resigning as Director to go to the Barber Institute in Birmingham and his letter of resignation was read on 19

December. It is hard to resist coming to the conclu

sion that he was forced to resign and that no concessions would be granted to the Gallery while he remained as Director. In a letter to Alec Martin written the day after he told the Board of his resignation he said. 'I heard last night that the

Minister for Education is prepared to recommend a salary and bonus for the incoming Director . . . to make his post

a whole-time office, which favours if granted to me would have kept me fixed, happy and useful in my native country till the end of my days . . . if my resignation has really produced this happy result I have done something for the cause of art in Ireland by going into exile.'72

Part of the responsibility for 'favours9 not being granted to him must lie with Bodkin's own difficult personality. He kept up a constant attack on the Depart ment of Finance on comparatively trivial issues instead of reserving his energies for the grander causes. In the published reports of the Gallery from 1929 to 1934 he castigates the Department for their refusal to grant his request to subscribe to a press-cutting service which he saw as essential because of the 'comparative isolation' of the National Gallery from other national collections. In May 1933 he wrote: 'things are very difficult here at present and the situation may be a little complicated by the fact that I recently advised the Board not to lend the Tura to Ferrara though the President expressed a strong wish that we should do so.'73 However, while these kinds of issues may have been annoying they did not warrant the negative response which Bodkin re ceived to his requests and the obvious decline in relations with the Department of Education. Requests for special leave to do arts-related work were refused, although Bodkin rarely took his full leave entitlement. On one such occasion, Bod kin noted that Mr Boland at the Depart ment of Education had indicated that Civil Servants as they grew older tended to develop exaggerated ideas of their prestige and usefulness. Excusing his facetiousness but not his bitterness he remarked: 'while I fear that I may be deve loping this tendency myself, I recognise that every possible effort has to be made to disabuse me of any such notions.'74 He

was also hampered in other ways. If he

intended to deal with Gallery affairs in his publications or lectures he had to get per mission. When asked by Denis Gwynn of publishers Burns and Oates to consider a book on religious art at the Gallery he wrote: 'The warnings issued by Civil Ser vants against discussing or writing about anything which comes within the ambit of their official duties are of such an emphatic kind that I myself have prac tically given up writing anything about the Gallery or its contents. The Depart

ments of Finance and Education require me to obtain official permission even to lecture in public on the Gallery. If I were to write a book on the Gallery it would have to be done in my own time and the Government would reserve to them selves, under existing regulations, the right to acquire as many copies as they

wished at a price to be fixed by them selves, to be disposed of by sale or other

wise as they thought fit. So I have no temptation to spend my own time in such unremunerative efforts.'75

These conditions were intolerable for any Director but for Bodkin they were in supportable. His energy, commitment, drive and perhaps most of all, his ambi tion drove him reluctantly out of the

Gallery and out of Ireland. The later history of his contribution to the arts is another story that remains to be told.

Anne Kelly

Anne Kelly is Director of the Arts Administration

Studies Unit at University College Dublin. She writes and lectures on matters of cultural interest and is involved in cultural policy issues in both an Irish

and European context. She is a member of the Board

of Visitors to the National Museum and of the

Committee of Cultural Consultants which advises the European Commission.

ILLUSTRATIONS OVERLEAF NOTES ON PAGE 180

-177 -



I =_~~



W7.



IRISH ARTS REVIEW


NOTES

1. Presentation address by Arnold Bennett to

Bodkin 22 December 1922, quoted in Aileen

Bodkin, M> dear T.B., some letters to Thomas

Bodkin from Arnold Bennett. Unpublished MS.

2. National Gallery of Ireland, minutes of Board

Meeting, 7 December 1921.

3. National Gallery of Ireland, minutes of Board

Meeting, 6 April 1923.

4. Frans Post A Brazilian Landscape

acknowledged in National Gallery, Board

minutes, 18 July 1923.

5. National Gallery of Ireland, minutes, 5 December 1923.

6. National Gallery of Ireland, minutes, 1 February 1922.

7. National Gallery of Ireland, minutes, 21 July 1922.


9. National Gallery of Ireland, memorandum

accompanying Bodkin's letter of application for directorship, (May 1929).

10. National Gallery of Ireland, minutes, 7 April 1926. Bye-Law 28 National Gallery of

Ireland. Amended 1951 ? (iv ?27/31 deals

with Lane Fund). Amended 1969 ?(ivv 37/41 deals with the Lane Fund).

11. National Gallery of Ireland minutes, 20 April 1927.

12. National Gallery of Ireland, Department of

Finance to Bodkin, 14 November 1928. 13. Report of Deputation to President Cosgrave

and Minister for Education, National Gallery of Ireland, minutes, 10 December 1931.

14. National Gallery of Ireland, November 1932.

Bodkin declined to become a member of the

Academy of Christian Art in Ireland. Liam

S Grogan was an 'important person in this

Dublin institution.

15. Anne Kelly, The Church, The State and

Thomas Bodkin in The Irish Times, 28

December 1987. His delay in accepting an

offer to become Director of the Arts Council on the grounds of his lack of knowledge of

the Irish language among other issues meant

that he missed the opportunity because of a

change of Government.

16. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin in

response to Sean hUadhigh, November 1928.

17. Provisional Government order, June 17 1922.

18. M> dear T.B., op.cit., p. 11.

19. National Gallery of Ireland, minutes, 4 April 1928. Abraham Begeign A Wooded Landscape

was sold with other works from Bodkin's

collection of Old Masters, Drawings and

Paintings at Sotheby's on 11 November 1959. 20. National Gallery of Ireland, minutes, 4 April

1928. It was suggested that Bodkin's statement should be recorded as an expression of his views and not entered in minutes.

21. Thomas Bodkin, 'On Buying Pictures for a

Public Gallery', in extract from In Honour of

Daryl Lindsay, eds. F Philipp and S Stewart.

Oxford University Press, Melbourne 1964. 22. ibid. 23. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to

Minister for Education, 10 June 1929.

24. ibid.

25. National Gallery of Ireland, July 1931. Also Thomas Bodkin, op.cit.

26. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to John L Burke, June 1933.

27. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to

Brinsley MacNamara, 21 September 1929.


Brinsley MacNamara, 23 May 1929. 29. National Gallery of Ireland, from Auditor

General, 14 December 1929.

30. National Gallery of Ireland, quoted in

Bodkin to H N Bowesman, Department of

Finance, October 1932.


Secretary, Department of Industry and

Commerce, 17 August 1931.


S O'Broin, Department of Finance, 13 June 1929.

33. National Gallery of Ireland, from

Department of Finance, 6 March 1928.

34. National Gallery of Ireland, Annual Report, 1933.


correspondent, December 1931.

36. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to Lady Gregory, December 1930.

37. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to Father

Killian, January 1931. 'Bulls' was a pub in

Suffolk Street.

38. National Gallery of Ireland, correspondent to

Bodkin, December 1929. 39. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to Office

of Public Works 25 January 1930.


Department of Education 14 January 1928.


42. National Gallery of Ireland, O'Callaghan to

Alec Martin, 11 April 1927.

43. National Gallery of Ireland Bill, 1928.


Sir Robert Witt, 7 January, 1929.


President Cosgrave, 23 January 1930.

46. Trinity College Dublin, Bodkin Papers 7003 to President Cosgrave 9 March 1931.

47. Trinity College Dublin, from President's

Department, 13 January 1930.

48. Trinity College Dublin, Bodkin to President

Cosgrave, April 1931.

49. Trinity College Dublin, Bodkin to

Department of Finance, September 1931. 50. National Gallery of Ireland, from Sir John

Lavery, 9 October 1932. 51. Trinity College Dublin, Bodkin to

Mr Sherlock, 9 November 1932.

52. My dear T.B., op.cit. p. 12.


Brinsley MacNamara, 18 September 1930.

54. M> dear T. B., op.cit. p. 30.

55. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to Alec

Martin, 6 July 1927. Bodkin made a gift to

the Gallery of Domenico Feti's The Parables of the Lord of the Vineyard. Minutes 14 December

1927. 56. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to

Brinsley MacNamara, 23 May 1929.

57. National Gallery of Ireland, Board minutes, 5 June 1929.

58. National Gallery of Ireland, from Thomas

McGreevy, 10 March 1934. 59. Thomas Bodkin, 'On buying Pictures for a

Public Gallery', op. cit.


Martin, July 1931.


Osborn Kling, Stockholm, 23 September 1933.

62. Trinity College Dublin, Bodkin Papers 7003, from President Cosgrave, 31 August 1927.

63. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to Mr

Maher, Department of Education, 14 January, 1928.



66. National Gallery of Ireland, from OPW, 31 January 1933.


68. National Gallery of Ireland, survey/ questionnaire 1931. Galleries surveyed included the Ashmolean; Fogg Art Museum;

Brera, Milan; Stockholm Museum of Fine

Art; Fine Art Institute Boston; National

Gallery, Ottawa; National Gallery, London. Art Galleries in Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Detroit, Berlin,

Pennsylvania, New York. Administration costs for the National Gallery were ?4,149,

compared with ?13,943 for the National Portrait Gallery, London, and ?134,636 for the Victoria and Albert Museum.

69. National Gallery of Ireland, report of

Deputation to President Cosgrave and Minister of Education, 10 December 1931.


71. National Gallery of Ireland, from

Department of Finance, 6 May 1927. Because of his job at the Commissioners the salary allocation of ?500 per annum for the Director of the National Gallery was reduced to ?200 in Bodkin's case.


Martin, 15 December 1934. 73. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to

H P Boland, 10 November 1932.

74. National Gallery of Ireland, Bodkin to Denis

Gwynn, 31 January 1934.

-180



Documents

Thomas Bodkin at the National Gallery of Ireland