One of his most intimate friends, J. Leigh Philips, who possessed considerable artistic judgment, wrote in 1797—the year after Wright’s death—the following account of Wright’s treatment by the Royal Academy, and there is no doubt but that he was well acquainted with all the circumstances of the case:—
“His portraits are mostly confined to the immediate neighbourhood of Derby; this remark may likewise in a great degree extend to the generality of his works, as but few of his late pictures have been publicly exhibited, owing to their being frequently disposed of even before finished, and to a repugnance which he felt at sending his works to an exhibition where he had too much cause to complain of their being improperly placed, and sometimes even upon the ground, that, if possible, they might escape the public eye. As a proof of the truth of this remark, the last pictures he exhibited were placed upon the ground. In consequence of which they were so much injured by the feet of the company, as to render it necessary to have the frames repaired and re-gilded. This narrow jealousy, added to the circumstance of his being rejected as an R.A. at the time Mr. Garvey was a successful candidate, did not tend to increase his opinion of the liberality of his brethren in the profession. The Academy, however, being afterwards made aware of the impropriety of thus insulting a man of his abilities, deputed their Secretary, Newton, to Derby, to solicit his acceptance of a diploma, which he indignantly rejected, knowing how little the institution could serve him, and feeling perhaps a satisfaction that his friend Mortimer and himself were both deemed equally unqualified to enjoy the honours attached to that Royal establishment.”
The Messrs. Redgrave, in their “Century of Painters,” “take exception to this account of the treatment of Wright by the Academy,” and say, “We are inclined to discount the whole of the tale” upon the grounds that “we have searched the records of the Academy to learn the facts connected with Wright’s retirement.” It was a safe place to search for what was sure not to be found, if Mr. Philips’ account were true.
Against the authors of the “Century of Painters” are arrayed the writers and poets of the day, who took up the case when the circumstances were well known. If Wright felt aggrieved, he had a perfect right to decline the honour; and it appears to me that the story as told by Mr. Philips has more claim to credence than the opinions of writers a century later, founded upon such purely negative evidence.
The Messrs. Redgrave also state that “he then (when offered the full diploma) refused to comply with the law of the Academy, which requires a member to present one of his works to the Academy before receiving his diploma, and required his name to be removed from the list of Associates.” As Wright declined the proffered honour, it was not necessary for him to “comply with the law of the Academy, and present one of his works.” The refusal was consequent upon his retirement, but there is nothing to show that it caused it.
Again, Mr. S. Redgrave, in his “Dictionary of Artists,” states—“On the foundation of the Academy he had entered as a student, and in 1781 he was elected an Associate; his election as a full member followed in 1784. But we are told that, annoyed by another having been elected before him, he retired altogether from the Academy. The facts, however, do not bear out this statement, and it appears more probable that the nervous, irritable, ailing painter, settled quietly so far from the Metropolis, was afraid of the duties and responsibilities which his membership would entail.” It will be seen that Mr. S. Redgrave omits to state the “facts” to which he refers.
The retirement of Wright from the Academy induced Hayley, the Poet, to write the following Ode, with a view to “Guard him from meek depression’s chill controul”:—
ODE TO JOSEPH WRIGHT, ESQ., OF DERBY.[30]
“Away! ye sweet, but trivial forms,
That from the placid pencil rise,