Is this a “lost” portrait of Mary Jane Clairmont Godwin?
On a recent visit to Chawton House in Hampshire England, most familiarly known for its connection to Jane Austen, I came across this portrait. The Chawton House library has obtained a collection of the writings of early woman travel writers, referred to as The Centre for the Study of Early Women’s Writing, 1600–1830, including Mary Shelley and her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft.
This oil on canvas original painting hangs in an upper hallway. One might expect it to be in the National Portrait Gallery or some other vaunted institution of collection, but you have to go to Hampshire to see it. A card below the painting asks, “Could this be Mary Wollstonecraft?” Two cards provide its uncertain provenance and clues.
“Portrait of a lady said to be Mrs. Godwin, née Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) Attributed to George Beare (1725-1749) Oil on Canvas 1792 (?)”
“Is this Mary Wollstonecraft, famous women’s rights writer. The answer remains a mystery. At auction, it was attributed to George Beare and said to be ‘Mrs Godwin, authoress, 1792’ (as per a faint inscription on the front). She does not closely resemble the known portrait by John Opie and George Beare died 10 years before Wollstonecraft was born.”
“Her ‘mob cap’ is characteristic of the late 1780s, so it is unlikely that George Beare painted it. Another label on the back attributes it to John Downman RA, a plausible possibility as he was working in London at this time.”
I agree that the subject of the portrait bears little resemblance to any known likenesses of Mary Shelley’s mother, Mary Wollstonecraft. But it does seem to bear a resemblance to someone else in the Godwin household. I’ll let you be the judge.
The attribution to George Beare I think can easily be dismissed, while John Downman, who was a prolific painter of portraits, in admittedly different styles, could be accurate. But what of the reference “said to be Mrs Godwin, authoress, 1792 (?).” What if it is indeed Mrs Godwin, however not the first, but the second, Mary Jane Clairmont Godwin, Mary Shelley’s stepmother?
If the date of 1792 is correct, this is negative evidence, as Mary Jane Clairmont was of no notoriety at that time. But if the other characteristics are considered, perhaps the date (?) is off.
In the portrait, she is holding a book in her hands, clearly suggesting her connection to writing, or publishing. Of the precious little we know of Mary Jane Clairmont’s physical look, is that her daughter had brown hair, and a brief comment in Mary Shelley’s History of a Six Weeks Tour, a French hotel page referred to her as “a fat lady’. How he may have meant that is open to interpretation, but the woman in the portrait is not slight or thin.
After her marriage to William Godwin in 1801, four years after the death of Wollstonecraft, the Godwins opened their publishing business, The M.J. Godwin Juvenile Library. The business first opened in 1805 off Oxford Street and relocated to 41 Skinner Street in 1807, registered in her name. William Godwin was well known in the literati circle, for his writing and his philosophical bent, but his wife was now a London publisher. They published the Swiss Family Robinson (1816) and other works that came to some prominence, including the Charles and Mary Lamb’s volumes of Shakespear. Though the business struggled later, in the years of its beginning must have been of some notoriety. Mary Jane Godwin was an editor and nominal writer on her own, so a reference to “authoress” is not out of line, or connected to a mistaken identification as Wollstonecraft.
It would seem quite natural that an artist like Downman might be persuaded to paint the wife of a prominent London literary figure like Godwin and a formidable person on her own. And in the first decade of the Juvenile Library, the money for a portrait paid by the business earnings seems reasonable.
If this were indeed M. J. Godwin and not Mary Wollstonecraft the date would likely be around 1806 to 1812. This could easily be within the timeframe John Downman was in London, presenting his works in exhibits. The “mob cap” for older women was still in style into the 1820s with added lace popular beginning around 1800. The cap in this portrait appears to have lace as a prominent feature of its fashionable design and the proud dress of the middle-class is unlike the more egalitarian simple style of Wollstonecraft.
Comparison of “Mrs Godwin” at Chawton House and two known portraits of Mary Wollstonecraft by John Opie
For the other “evidence” we would have to rely on the visual. If we look at the portrait in question in comparison to the known portraits of Wollstonecraft, painted by John Opie, one painted within a year of Wollstonecraft’s death in childbirth, said by Mary to be painted while she was pregnant with her, they look wholly different. If we then compare the painting of “Mrs Godwin” with the known portrait of Claire Clairmont, the resemblance is striking, while the quality of the Clairmont portrait is somewhat less.
Comparison of “Mrs Godwin” at Chawton House to Claire Clairmont
Is this comparison conclusive? Clearly not, and as mysterious as the question of its being Wollstonecraft, it seems to me well within the realm of possibility that a “lost” portrait of Mary Jane Vail Godwin née Clairmont, London publisher, editor and step-mother of Mary Shelley, authoress of Frankenstein, has lain misidentified for two centuries. You be the judge.
Secret Memoirs of Mary Shelley – E-Book
Secret Memoirs of Mary Shelley – Paperback
Get Mary Shelley Memoirs Audiobook Free with Trial at Audible
Now you can buy your own copy of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s Frankenstein for about a quarter-million dollars. Update: It actually sold for $1.17 million! What is referred to as the “Manney Copy” of the original 1818 edition of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus in three volumes, from the first 500 run printing from 
Mary Wollstonecraft, the “Mother of Feminism” is honored with a statue on Newington Green, near where she lived in North London, sculpted by artist Maggi Hambling. And much like Wollstonecraft herself during her lifetime, the silver nude form chosen by the artist and the committee who labored for ten years to fund it has brought shock, consternation, and considerable hum-humming. (Photo Jill Mead/The Guardian)
Since its unveiling, the statue has been mistakenly confused with Wollstonecraft’s daughter, Mary Shelley in some comments and hearty discussion of its merits, something which its sculptor is apparently used to. The sculpture is said by its creator as not intended to be a likeness of its honoree, and it clearly is not, though one wonders what Wollstonecraft herself would think of a statuesque nude with a decidedly pinched face as a representation of feminism. If a sculptor wanted to provide a likeness, there are several portraits of Wollstonecraft painted in her lifetime.