Volume V No.

2 7&c BRITISH AKT Journal

The lamia in the art of JW Waterhouse

James K Baker & Cathy L Baker

in tbe early J9OOs Jo¡yn William Waterhouse (1849-1917)'

painted scenes of a mythical serpent-tcoman. a lamia',
which are considered some of his jnost colourful and
appealing works. The young model employed hy
Waterbouse is discussed in this essay.

n Tbe Studio review of the 1905 Rt)yal Acadein\

I Exhihition, art critic AL Baldry praised Waterhouse's fii.s[

Lamia (PI 1) as 'one of his most beautifu! and admirable
fantasies',- Thai same year the painting tirew praise in the
Liverpool Autumn Exhihition, and more recen tl\
Waterhouse's biognipher Anthony Hobson expressed his
opinion that the 1905 painting was "one of the artist's most
moving works of the period'.-^ Waterhou.se's intere.sts in
lamias aiul txher mytiiical subjects were inspired by his \avc
of classical myihology, medieval legend, history, literature.
and poetry. He .seemed especially intere.sted in the lamia
myth, anti ¡larticularly in a medieval stor\- un the suhjeci told
as an anecdote in Robert Burton's 1621 Anatomy of
Melancboly ."^ That popular and monumental mine of curious
information concerned, in part, various kinds of love and
other forms of '[isychiatric disorders' includlni^ 'the serpent-
woman theme'.'' The anecdote touched briefly on a
bittersweet aflair between an immortal lamia and a mortal
man, a story that also fascinated the poet John Keats (1795-
lazi)*" who wrote an epic narrative based on the Burton tale.
In 1819, Keats took Burton's anecdote of 24 lines and greatly
elaboratetl upon it a.s a fanciful two-part tale of 708 lines kiv
his LamiaJ the fourth and last of his great romance
narratives. It was published in an 1820 anthology entitled
Lamia. Isabella. T¡je Eve of St. Agnes, and other Poems that
became known as the 'Lamia Volume' because of the
introductory poem. The anthology was 'well received' in the
Edinburgh Review,^ and in more recent years the lamia
poem was considered of 'superior vi-orkman.ship well-nig!i
faultless'.'' Juhii William Waic : (1049-1917)
imles.s fithcnvise .stated
The themes of much of Keats's (xjetiy are of youthful
I Uimici. 1905. Oil on canv:Ls, 91 x ST cm. Privntf collecüim. I'lmiu by
lovers consumed by romantic desire, but opposed by the ununcsy (if lllu.siim.s üallciT
supernatural and/or real-life world; the conflicts cïf ideal
versus real lo\'e in which lasting love is denied."^ Keats's
Lamia is .such a tale, of a young charioteer in ancient Corinth inspired Waterhouse to paint them. In addition to the
smitten by the beauty of an immortal enchantress of magical subjects he found in history and literature, including the
origin: an illusion. She, in turn, fell in '.swooning love' with writings of Boccaccio, Homer, Maloiy Shakespeare, and
him, a mortal, and he, unaware that she didn't have a drop of Tennyson. Equally inspirational to him was William Smith's
liuman blood in her, was consumed by her goddess-like monumental three-volume reference of nearly 4,000 pages.
beauty, melodious and seductive voice, and a yearning desire the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and
to marry her. Their romance in a "palace of sweet sin' (Lamia .\iythofogyß
11, 31) escalated through the poem to a dramatic ending Waterhouse's more than 200 paintings were almo,st
when in an instant as if in a puff of smoke the lamia 'vanisheil exclusively of females of myth and literature such as
with a frightful scream', and the young charioteer died (II, Aplirotlite, Ariadne, Circe, Mariamne, Mariana, Minintia,
298-311). The ending is as surjirising as any penned by O. Ophelia, Pandora, and Rsyche, as well as femmes fatales from
Henry,'' with its ironic and sudden twists of plots. 'otherworlds' such as mermaids, sirens, witches, nymphs,
Important to this e.ssay on Waterhtiu.se's lamias i.s the and lamias. The artist painted more of the last two subjects
related pt )ein by Keats La Helle L?ame sans Merci ( 'The lovely than any of the others. Greek mythology tells tif lamias,
latiy without pity') of a 'lamia-like' faery-child who seduced demonic serpent-turned-women who devoured haple.ss
men to 'slumber on tlie moss' with her (Verse IX). In her victims including children. They were sexually voracious ¡is
apathetic habit of 'one-night stands' the 'lady without pit\'' well as bloodthirsty, seduced men for carnal pleasure, and
would then vanish while her victims slept and, much to their then 'sucked their blocKl while they slept'.'^ Thus lamias in
anguish, awaken with empty arms. Such fentasies by Keats ancient Greece were demons of the night', sources of

15
Tbe BRITISH MIXJouriuil Volume V No.2
nightmarish tales told to misbehaving chiklren, and gave rise
to vampire stories in nuKlern legenti.'^ Lamias that were
'half-women' had the lower bodies of snakes but torsos of
women. Kenyon Cox's Liiith depicts such a half-woman
serpent akin in form to that assumed by Satan when he
tempted Eve (URL I).''' Indeed, some stories equate Eve with
the Liiith as the first wife of Adam and the original wild
woman sucubus" and 'child-slaving denum .'''
Such tales, in a sense going back to the biblical Creation.
make lamias the most ancient of the femme fatale myths, and
they provided inspiration through the ages to innumerable
writers, ¡XHits. .sculptors, and painters, hut not least to John
William Waterhouse. and of course they provided ample
excuse for painting the female nude. True, tho.se lamias that
were nightmarish to see were, intleeil, frightful,'" but others
were unequalled in their beauty after they had emerged,
undrajx-'d, from their reptilian 'coc<«>n.s' and, so to speak,
•spreading their wings . Hertiert Draper's 1909 Lamia (URL
2) is described as "lu.scious ,'^ a term that could be applied
equally to his 1913 Kelpie (URL 3), and these are only two
paintings among many that speak of Draper's talent as a
portrayer of sensuous young women,''' as was his close
friend, John William ('Nino') \täterhou^e.-"
John Keats described his lamia as a maid more Ix^autiful
than |any] ever with twisted braid' (1. lHS-186). And after a
writhing, convulsing, -.ma frightening transformation from a
snake's body to one of "a woman's shape" she bcxame a 'full
born lieauty new and exquisite' (.1, HS-ITZ). Keats's lamia
was as beautiful to kxik upon as a woman as she had been
colourful to see a.s a .serpent, with the 'd:izzling hues' of her
reptilian skin eyed like a peacock all crimson barred' and
'spotted with golden, green, and blue' (1, 47-53). Keats's
16
2 ¡Minia, 1905. alsi> k n o w n xs/.ííWí/rt-AetJí(. Oil lin tiirníLs, 142 x 102 cm.
By ct(urt^.•^y Auckland Art Gallfr>- Toi a Tamâki. Gift of Mr Mos.s E)a\ts, 1930
3 Uimia, cl9()5. also k n o w n a>. tjunia-Keats Oil n n cuiv-a.s. H i x 8K t rn.
Uv cDurif.sv (if S i m o n 'loll |jK;ition iiniin<)wn
jTortniyal was de.scribed by one critic as 'rich and cokîur-
drenched from a brilliant palette'.-' and Waterhouse fallowed
Keats's vivid description of the lamia's .serpentine skin. In
fact, in nature a shed snakeskin is t^an^lucent and colourless.
and Draper's ¿¿Í/ÍÍ/W (.see also 19h, PI .36) is accurate in that
res[iect; but Waterhou.se. although al.so an acute observer of
nature and usually meticulously accurate in his wt)rk,
followed Keats's description. Keats treated his lamia as a
demure hut coy enchantress who. as if a lovely dam.sel in
distre.ss, could lure any man to heraitl. Such is the stoi"\'U>th
in the poem and Waterhouse's painting. The following
account, paraphrasetl from the poem, provides an
understanding of Waterhouse's paintings of lamias but also of
.some other paintings <if his that might otherwise seem
unrelated to the subject.
One day in the "wild hills' of ancient Greece during an
'evening dim at moth time", (I. 174, 220, 237-42) a hantlsome
charioteer whom the lamia lusted after passetl nearby.
though he was unaware of her presence. To draw his
attention, the just-turned-dam sel called to him as though she
was, indeed, in distress. Look back!' 'Show some pity!' 'Will
you leave me in tbese |(.lark| bills alone?' she asked (1. 24S).
The lamia appealed ti) him as if she did need help, but she
spoke in such a 'soft and luting voice so delicious to hear' it
 Volume y No.2 Tbe BRITISH AKTJournat

4 Lamia. 1909. Oil on canva.s, I45 x 91.5 cm. Private collection

5 TheCJyarmer, 1911. Oil on canvas. 9 ^ x 6 1 cm. Private collection. Photo ©

Christie's Images Üd, 2003

6 The Necklace, study for ¿ÍÍ«IÍÍÍ,C1909. Oil on canvas, 95 x 65 cm. Private

collection. Photo © Christie's Images Ltd. 2003

was as though 'she sang her words too sweet for earthy l
(1, 230-246, 249, 299). 'Every word she spake enticed him on"
(I, 326), and by her beauty and honeyed voice he knew she
must be a deity. 'Ah, Goddess", he said (I, 257). But she was
not yet 'one hour old' (I, 191) though it seemed to him that
he had loved her already a "whole summer long' (I. 25Ü).
Transfixed, his eyes 'drunk her beaucy up / Leaving no drop
in the bewildering cup / And still the cup was full' (I, 251-
253). As a «rgin with 'purest lips' (never kissed) fl, 189). the
lamia "put her new lips to his' (I, 294). She 'trembled,
moaned, and sighed'. Demurely she blu.shed.

A tfirstglance, Waterhouse's picture fPl 1) goes no further

Xiihan this initial encounter between - in his story - a lamia
and a knight (rather than a charioteer), but the longer the
painting is studied the more one feels caught up in the
middle of some more complex tale. Does the lamia in
Waterhouse's provocative painting 'slumber on the moss'
with the knight, as did the faery-child with a knight in Keats's
La Belle Dame sans Merci? (revised version, verse IX). Does
the lamia 'wind her gentle limbs' around the knight, as did
the moon goddess with her shepherd lover in Keats's
Endymion: A poetic Romance'^ (II, 851-852). And like the
shepherd, and a 'child taken in at suckling time' (III, 456),

17
me BRITISH ART /iiurruit Volume V No.2
does the knight 'in love's madne.s,s' 'swtiitjn drunken fVom
PIcasure'.s ni[iples?' (II. 860. 868*869).
In paintings such as those in Pis 1 and 7 the object of the
artist is to capture the viewer's interest, arouse the
imagiiiauon, antl evoke the kinds of question.s tliat explain
why B:iidr\' and Hohson prai.sed Waterhouse's Í9ÜS Lamia as
one of his 'most admirable and moving works'. One schcjlar
said that in literature 'a great work begins to have a life of its
own as soon as it has left the hand of the writer who can do
nothing to prevent readers from interpreting it freely'.— The
same scholar expre,ssed a similar opinion about great works
of art, that everyone has a right to 'read' a painting however
he or she pleases. The seduction that Keats so vividly
described - with 'sweet words' spoken as 'through bubbling
honey' (I, ñ4-6S) - is almosi impossible to render and be
'read" on canvas. But in Waterhouse's PI 1 the knight's
intease eyes do drink 'her beauty up' for. as Keats wrote, the
alluring enchantress is more beautiful than 'any ever with
braided hair'. Accordingly, Waterhouse depicted her as such.
Her lovely profile and countenance is portrayed as if blushing
(.1. lS(i-i87) anti her hair is "braided' with a string of pearis
(discus,sed further below). Waterhouse demonstrates the act
of seduction with tender touches: lingering exchangeti g;izes;
and the knight's ptjinced "sabaton" that symbolically betrays
ihe arousal of his desire. Even if subliminal, such imageiy
invites viewers to 'read' meanings into a scene, and the
intimacies suggested in Waterhouse's Lamia are akin to the
'sweet sin' of Keats.
It has been said that 'Waterhouse was a genius as a teller of
tales with brushes and paints, putting highly imaginative
interpretations to stories on canvas, ever inviting students of
his works to read and interpret tales his paintings tell'.--^ It
has also been said that Waterhou.se had 'an instinctive gift for
suspending viewers at the most striking moments of
narratives'/'^ and what could be more striking than when in
Pis 1-3 the aroused enchantress fawns before the knight? In
Waterhouse's dark and secluded scene - in 'wiki hills at muth
18
time" - and with words, mtians, and sigh-s "too sweet' to
imagine. Wateriiouse intimates that the lamia and her suitor
will 'slumber on the moss' with limbs 'wound gently' aroutid
one another. Hints of such Intimacy are also present hoth in
Keats's La Belle Dame sans Merci-^ anti Waterhouse's
paintijig of the same name.-*^ In the analog<.)us 'double'
¡paintings of Waterhouse's Lamia and La Belle Dame sans
Merci, sexual desire is suggested by 'double-entendres'.^^
Pictured in P! 7 the knight's grip around his rigid lance is t)ne
such, and the long, pointed sabaton in Pis 1-3 is another.-^
Both 'ambigu'ítés' can be interpreted sexually-'^
While myths speak of lamias as being malevolent anti
sexually voracious, Keats treated his with compassion. She
was not as demonic in his story as she shouki be according
to legend, although she was deceptive in c(.)ncealing her
reptilian origin. To satisfy her own desires, all that she wanted
was a woman's hotly 'Fu f{jr life. Itwe. and pleasure' (I. 39-40).
Waterhouse was attracted to ideas of "innocence' and
throughout his works he portrayed femmes fatales with
innocent-appearing young models, even while tlepicting dire
and stimetimes supernatural events.^" Accordingly,
Waterhouse picks up Keats's narration only after the lamia
has been tninsformeti from ihe body of a snake into t)ne of a
woman, and avoids her frightening metamorphosis. The
artist paid homage more subtly to the poem and myth by
showing only remnants of the lamia's just-shed snakeskin
(Pis 1-3). iiHerestingly. Watei'house also preferred not to
paint his lamia entirely i[i the nude, as did most other artists
who painted them 'undres,sed' even of snakeskin. Instead, he
draped his lamia with a clinging kirtle (a long dress of the
Middle Ages) coloured symbolically of the snakeskin
de,scrilTed by Keats with 'dazzling hues eyed like a peacock'
(1,50; Pis 1-3).
Waterhouse, however, departed completely from Keats's
tale of a lamia in respect of her desire of a charioteer (I, 217):
a story that takes place in the Greece (.if the 8th century BC
when Ht:)mer^' told of people who raced chariots, wore robes
and sandals, and revered the Olympian gods. Nor, of course,
is [here any armour mentioned in Keats's poem, but
Waterhouse's is not only present but evidently belongs
specifically to lSth-centuiy Europe, with hingetl or buckled
pieces made of hammered iron ornately flutet! for rigidity
('Pis 1--2, and 7), Waterhouse's knights are, therefore, the stuff
of the Middle Ages, of knight-errantry, pageantiy chivalry, in
courtly love and the Arthurian tradition, the stuff of the
rtimanticism that in.spired Keats, Scott, anti Tennyson. Artists
of similar leanings, such as Cowper. Dicksee. Draper,
Edmund Blair Leighton, Millais, and Watts, also painted
knights antl tlamsels, as we have seen in Waterhtiuse's La
Belle Dame sans Merci and 1905 Lamia, as well as in his
Í910 Ms-tram and Isolde (URL 4y
nthony Hobson believeti that Waterhouse 'had a
A Eendency to re-think and re-use old themes under
different titles',*- and suggestetl chat Waterht)u.se's 1905
Latnia (PI 1) is only a version of his 1893 La Belle Dame sans
Merci (PI 7). Both pictures are of knights, and of femmes
fatales in similar predatory poses engaged in .setluctitin. Both
scenes are set in dark surroundings with a background
stream, and with the same bent signature tree (right
foregniund) that relates them. Such comparisons support
this idea. In his La Belle Dame sans Merci, Waterhouse also
're-thought' and 're-worked' a stoiy much older than his
painting; Keats's 1819 poem of the same name- Verse IV
clearly identifies the femme fatale as 'A lady full beautiful - a
faery's child', but in his version Waterhouse portrays her as a
water nymph, Waterhouse usetl Keats's title tjnly tt) suggest a
 Volume V No.2 The BRITISH AKT Journal

(any) 'lovely lady without pity' since water nymphs, sirens,

mermaids, lamia.s, and others of that ilk were all malevolent
predators on men in mythology.
While Wüterhou.se's object was to paint an evilly disposed
leuiie fille t)f great heauty, he chose to depict her as a water
nymph rather than a faery-child. Waterhouse demonstrated
his intent when in a preliminary sketch he draped her with a
lily pati for a hat,-^-^ the same as the one worn by the water
nymph in his A Naiad (URL 5) of tlie same year. Another clue
to the nymph's identity is her kirtle sequined with pearls and
those that adorn her hair, obviously obtained from fresh
water clams in the stream beyond, the habitat of water
nymphs.-'''
While Keats de.scribed the hair of his faery-child as 'long', a
tioosc wasn't mentioned. But in Waterh{.)use's fancy his water
nymph loops a noose of long hair around the knight's neck
in an overt act of .seduction, and also clearly possesses the
allure of her deliciou.s red lips. The 'moral' of the story is that
"nothing to a man is deadlier than lips or hair'.^^ xhe longing
gaze of Waterhouse's 1893 nymph is repeated in his 1896
Hylas and the Nymphs (URL 6), and then again in his 1905
Lamia. The touching hands in the latter are a repeat from 1 Lu Helle Dame sans Merci, 1S93. Oil on canvas, 110.0x81 cm.
Hylas that adds support to another of Hobson'.s comments Hessiscbes [.iindcsmuseum. Darmstadt
on how closely the artist's 're-thought/re-named pictures' are
8 Study for Lamia. Pencil on payjer. 12 a 1 i.5 cm. © Yule Center lor lïdti.sb f\rt,
'interrelated' (discussed in Hobson's monograph. Chapter
New Hai'cn. LISA / Bequest of Eli;i:ibetb S. 'lower. Pbtito Biidgcman Art IJbr.ir\-
10, 'Variations on a Theme'). Waterhouse's lamias of different
titles are also re-named variations. The Necklace (PI 6) is
identified as a 'Study for his 1909 Lamia'.^^ The Charmer (PI
5) is a lamia discussed later, but important for the moment is
that the three versions are of lamias beside ponds.
A nmuber of other paintings by Waterhouse bearing for earthy lyres'. The lyre, incidentally, was (.arefuUy
different titles are in fact variations upon each other. One, for researched by Waterhouse and shows the classical seven-
example, is the manner in which the lamia in PI 4 spreads her string instrument of ancient Greece called a 'lyra' and used a.s
hair like the nymph in Waterhoase's Hylas and the Nymphs. an accompaniment for singing. Waterhouse was a Symboli.st
Another nymph in the scene offers a handful of pearls, and as well as a Romanticist and it can be assumed hy the scene
the subjects in Pis 1, 4, 6, and 7, are all adorned with, or are and its title that The Charmer sang such 'honeyed' words
holding pearls and, it is important to note, are seated beside that listeners were mesmerized by them, and by the sounds
freshwater sources. (Waterhouse's 1901 Diploma Picture, A of her tyre. Schooling fish symbolize the attraction.
Mermaid (URL 7), is a femme fatale with an ahalone shell for The Necklace (PI 6) was inspired from an event early in
a pearl necklace, a motif that appears as the chest in The Keats's poem when the god Hermes promised to turn a lamia
Necklace.) And so it is clear that Waterhou.se did indeed re- into a woman in exchange for the secret of where a wood
think old themes and scenes, and mix ideas of nymphs and nymph lived that Hermes lusted after. The lamia told of
lamias and of pearl props to suit his whimsy.3''' 'springs where the nymph was wont to bathe' and where she
The lamias seated beside ponds in Pis i-6 were inspired by kept a chest of pead gifts from Tritons (I, 13-20). Waterhouse
an episode in Keats's poem (L 145-183) when the lamia evidently reworked the composition of PI 4 in order to tell
transformed into a woman's body though not without pain this .story in the picture illustrated here as PI 6. The figure in
and exhaustion. Paraphrased, her eyes were 'in torture fixed'; PI 4 has her arms lifted. This was changed to show a nymph
'her mouth foamed'; and 'she writhed about convulsed with with her arms lowered in the act of inspet:ting the gift of a
pain'. When the tjrdeal was over she then 'rested at the foot necklace. Close scrutiny of PI 6, however, reveals a
of those wild hills / By a clear pool wherein she passioned / pentimento: originally, this figure too had her arms raised
To see herself escaped from sore ills' (shed of her reptilian like that in PI 4. The Necklace is de.scribed by Hobson as a
skin.) That the lamia in PI 4 looks down at her image in the 'Study for Lamia' but this should more correcdy be 'Study for
glassy pond clearly suggests that she wants to see if she had, a nymph'.
indeed, changed into woman's body 'fit for love and
pleasure'.
The Charmer depicts a scene when in a dark evening at The model: Muriel Foster
'moth time' the lamia awaited the arrival of her hoped-for
charioteer suitor (L 221). Since she was only 'one hour old' aterhouse's lamias may have heen posed for by the
she could not have waited long by the pool before she
'beheld him coming near, more near, passing close' (I, 237).
W same sitter, 'Miss Muriel Foster'. Little is known of her,
and as late as 1981 Christopher W(xxi believed the identity of
Keats doesn't say that she played and sang while waiting but the 'mysterious model who reappears so often in
Waterhouse assumed she did since he pictured her sitting Waterhouse's pictures would probably never be solved'.-^^
alone as if waiting and with a lyre as if playing. Her mouth is Waterhouse posed a number of models wbo remain
parted as if she were singing, and her hands are in position 'mysterious' and were it not for a pencilled inscription on a
to play the lyre. That the lamia did sing and play a iyre is profile sketch of his 1905 Lamia (PI 8) Miss Foster's identity
written in lines (1. 249, 297-299): 'She began to sing a .song of would likely never be known as there are no diaries, journals,
love, and so delicious were the words they were too sweet letters, files of papers, or memoirs of either artist or mcxiel

19
Ihe BRITISïf XKÏJournal Volume V No.2
that speak
After Waterhouse died in 1917 the sketch with Miss
Foster's name remained in the collection of his wife, Esther,
until 'The Remaining Works of the late J. WWaterhou.se. Esq.,
R.A; were sold in a Christie's auction of 23 July 1926. After
the sketch sold to a Mr JAC Nichoil as item No. 6 of 21 studies
of'Heads of Girls' in I-ot 8, the drawing disappeared into his
or other collections where Miss Foster's name remained
unknown to students of Waterhouse art for another 65 years.
In 1991, however, the location, history, and provenance of
the long-lost profile came to light when, surprisingly, it
appeared in the USA as part of the Elizabeth S Tower
Collection of'American and European Works' exhibited at the
Gibbes Museum of Art, Charleston. South Carolina."**' The
sketch had been purchased by Mrs Tower, then of San
Francisco, sometime in the early 1970s but just when and
where is unknown. When Mrs Tower died in 1988 the sketch
was bequeathed to the Yale Center for British Art (YBA), New
Haven, LISA, as part of her collection of 34 British Drawings
and Watercolours'.
The sketch became known in the Yale Center as 'Study for
liimia, c 1909" under Accession number B1992,13.11 and
filed under the same name a.s Image ID '^"BA I68488' in the
Bridgeman Art Library. The Yale change of name was
obviously influenced by Hob.son's monograph PI 117 and
Notation 3S9, both of which references are named 'Study for
Lamia, c 1905'. The 1909 Yale date should, therefore, have
been 1905. Until recently, however, the study remained
'buried' in the Yale collection unknown to researchers
interested specifically in Waterhouse works. Ultimately it
came to our attention when seen tin the Bridgeman Art
Library internet website.
Even after the sketch was first sold in 1926 it remained
unknown to Waterhouse researchers for another 40 years
until sold again in a December 1966 auction by Mr Charles
Ede. then of Ftilio Fine Art Ltd, London." In his Catalogue
XLIV Mr Ede listed: 'WATERHOUSE, John William, R.A. (1849-
1917): Study of Miss Muriel Foster. Pencil. A delicate study of
the profile and hairline i)f this young girl.' Ede's Catalogue
therefore revealetl for the first time the model's name in the
inscription, which is generally thought to have been written
by Waterhouse. It reads: 'Miss ['long' S followed by usual
lower case S] Muriel Foster / Buxton ['Buckston(e)' struck
out] R=/Chingford'.
In correspondence with the Yale Center, an intriguing
question was raised over the date and origin of the
inscription. Could Miss Foster's name and address have been
written by someone other than Waterhouse, and at a date
later than I905Í' If the inscription is that of the artist then it
could have been written as an afterthought any time between
1905 and 1917, the year that Waterhouse died. The
inscription seems to be autograph from the peculiar tell-tale
way that Waterhouse is known to have written a double 's',
using the old-fashioned 'long' form for the first of the
repeated letters, as in the 'Miss' (see PI 8). The correction of
the address from 'Buckstone' to 'Buxton' Is puzzling, since
one might presume that the artists knew her address well.
But Waterhouse could, of course, have been absent-mindedly
writing one form instead of the other (there is, for example,
Buckstone Park in London, whereas Miss Foster evidently
lived in Buxton Road, Chingford, an address - beside
Chingfcjrd Green - conveniently close to the railway station
that would take her into central London) only to recogni.se
his mistake and correct it immediately.
Although the lamia sketch with this name attached was in
the possession of Ede when sold again in 1966. it wasn't
illustrated in his Catalogue to show either the profile or
20
inscription. Ede recorded only Foster's name but for some
reason not her address. He did, however, describe the
sketch as a Study of Miss Muriel Foster 4 3/4' x 4 1/2 from
Mrs, Waterhouse's sale at Christie's. July 23, 1926'. Ede also
added: 'An identical chalk study of the same girl is
illustrated in Tbe Studio LXIV [XUV], p 250'. Then Ede
elaborated with the interesting note 'Waterhouse drawings
are full of an "othe("worldness" where passion and emotion
have a delicate reticence so much in contrast to the excess
of sentiment in many of his contemporaries'. Since the
sketch wasn't illustrated in Ede's Catalogue, or the fact
mentioned, the model's address on it was unknown to
Anthony Hobson who knew of her only by name. Moreover,
Hobson knew nothing of the nature of the (her) profile
except that Ede described it as 'identical' to the one
pictured in Tbe Studio (PI 9 herein).
Accordingly, Hobson cited Rde in Notations 330 of bis
di.ssertation''^ and 336 of his subsequent monograph^-* but, in
the absence of an illustration, and since Ede reported it to be
'identical', Hobson ¡Pictured Tbe Studio profile for PI 117 in
his monograph labelled only a,s "Study for Umia, c 1905'.
That is the name adopted by Yale although PI 64 and
Notation 330 of Hobson's dissertation specifically named the
sketch 'Miss Muriel Foster'; as in the Tower Collection.
An error in depiction is now obvious. The profile of 'face
and hairline' described b)- Ede (PI 8) was not 'identical' to Pt
9 of this treatise or of the above Pis 64 and 117. Moreover,
Tbe Studio profile was shown in red (Pi 10) and the gaze
lowered that made it seem as though another 'identical'
profile existed when in fact there never was one. Wliile
Waterhouse did sketch profiles in red (examples in Tbe
Studio reference on PI 10) he did not sketch the lamia in
.sanguine. The profile was apparently shown in red by Tbe
Sti4dio for no other reason that, as it was included in the
article with others that were indeed executed in sanguine, it
too was shown in the same way.
Additionally, while Hobson's monograph Notation 359 and
PI 117 are entitled 'Study for Lamia', they are described as in
'Black cbalk [our italics] on buff paper, heightened with
white, 12 X lOin (30 x 25cm) in the collection |thenj of Lady
Young'. The same study (PI 9) is now in the collection of
Dennis T Lanigan^-i and pictured in his Catalogue as PI 87:
'Study of the Head of Lamia for Lamia, c. 1905.' Lmigan notes
an inscription on the back of the sketch in Wateriiouse's
handwriting: -J.W Waterboitse 10 Hall Rd St John's Wood
Sttidy 12 5/8x 10 Il2in\
In summary of the above, there are only two 'Lamia' profile
sketches, b<5th in black, illustrated here as Pis 8 and 9 and
near itlentical to the profiles used in Pis 1-3. Pis 2 and 3 were
originally named 'Lamia-Keats, c 1905', numbered as 149 and
150 in Hobson's Catalogue of Works'. The two paintings
were (are) studies of PI 1, and both are pictured in black anil
white as Pis 65 and b^ in Holwon's dissertation in sequence
with PI 64 of the model. Major differences between our Pis 1-
3 are the location of the lamia's shed skin. Minor differences
are: the patterns and colours of her drapery; slight changes
in the positions of hands and helmet; and the íie[)iction of
wildflowers. In addition, an important point of comparison,
the lamia in PI 1 wears a string of pearls in her hair, but in Pis
2 and 3 she wears a fiower - that immediately identifies the
two 'I^mia-Keats'.
Their provenance is given in Hobson's monograph as
Notations 149 and 150. There is, however, new information
concerning No. 150 (PI 2) now known only as Iximia.
Moreover, it is fully published here for the first time,
although it has been illu.strated in exhibition brochures, the
most recent in the 2002 to 2003 'Gallery News' of the
 Votume V No.2 ¡he BRITISH

CHALK STUDV BV J. W. WATERHODSK, R.A.

Auckland Ai"t Gallery, New Zealand, from where permission

to reproduce the painting was kindly obtained.
Hohson's Notation 150 gives the following information:
I^mia - Keats, c 1905, 56 x 40in (142 x 102cm). Prov; Artist's .salt-,
Christie's 23 July 1926 (16) to C Thomson, 6gns.

To that can be added the following, courtesy of the Auckland

Gallery:

John Waterhouse (1849-1917) oil on canvas, Auckland Ait

Gallery Toi o Tamäki, gift of Mr Moss Davis, 1930.
By comparing these provenances it can be seen that the
original name of 'Lamia - Keats' became 'Lamia' in 1930 with
the dropping of the poet's name. The following is
paraphrased from Hohson's monograph (p 122). The link
between the jioem and picture is the addition of the poet's
name. There are two almost identical versions of it [Pis 2 and
3] retained by the artist and subsequently by his widow until
sold at Christie's in 1926. One sold for a hundred guineas
under the title Lamia - Keats. Yet the other picture of the
same title and similar dimensions went in the same sale for
only six guineas. It wa.s, therefore, presumably a large oil
sketch customary for a major work.
Hobson discusses how Waterhouse often painted oil
sketches (studies) 'through to', or near to completion.^"^ Pis
2 and 3 are exceptionally well finished studies 'near to
completion' and, as we have explained, were unsigned,
undated, and not intended to leave the studio: the Lamia -
Keats didn't for 21 years until auctioned in 1926. ') Siuiiv u¡ tlx I lead oj ¡.aiiihi lur Lamia, c 19(15. Black tlialk. lifigliicnetl wiili
white, un buíFwove paper. 32.2 x 26.7 cm. Collection Dennis T Lanigan
The location of study 149, which is shown here as PI 3
(courtesy of Simon Toll), remains unknown to us. We UyStuttrofthetleadofLamiii U>rLamia, cl (|)iiljlishcL] in TheS¡udio,\n\
.searched for it without success but a knowledgeable reader X1.1V No 186, 1908 p 25(1 is 'Chalk study)
of this article will perhaps report its whereabouts. It is quite
II Photograph of .Mi.ss Muriel FuMtr. cI908. Photography by Martin jaintj
possible that the painting is 'lost' in a private collection as StiLLÜDs, Queens Gale H;ill. H:irrington Roaii, Suuiii Kensington, Umdon.
were Waterhouse's 1903 Boreas (URL 8) for some 90 years, Private nillct tion. Phott> rest option: George Wiite. Hove. Ky.si Su.s.-ifx
and the recently 're-discovered' 1909 Gather Ye Rosebuds
While Ye May (URL 9).-*''

21
The BRITISH AXT Journal Volume V No 2

T his article ha.s (.liscu,s,scd the interrelatctl' pictures that

Waterhouse painted between 1893 and 1911. Just how
long Miss Foster sat for the artist, anti for which painting.s
altogether, is unknown, without supporting data from the
lost diaries and ¡ourrials. The exception is the fortuitous 1905
sketch inscription. Her name appears nowhere else, and to
our knowledge Waterhouse did not record names on works
including members of his family Visual identification of any
of his sitters is subjective to personal opinion, and debatable.
Hobson (see 2, pl7l} speaks of the difficulty of identifying
Waterhouse models in that the artist's "subtleties of
representation tended to fuse [confuse] faces'. Moreover,
Waterhouse may have u.setl models as 'forms' and portrayed
them okicr or younger than their true ages and. or with faces
"stylized" for the wistful, inniKent-looking appearances, and
"classical expressions' that Waterhouse favoured (see Wfx>d,
cited in n38 above, p 144).
We publish here for the first time a rare photograph of Miss
Muriel Foster of about 19(JH (PI 11) by kind permission of a
private owner Miss Foster's dreamy and statuesque beauty
speaks admirably of her as the "classical Waterhouse t>pe'
demonstrated in PI 7 (believed to be his first painting of her).
She was, perhaps, the "model of his models' (his muse) and
the artist may well, as the poet wrote, have "Drunk he beauty
up / I-eaving no drop in the bewildering cup / And still the
cup was full" (I, 251-253).''^

1 Born in Romt- kijanuar\ iMi'». Died in
Ijniilnn 1(1 Fi;bniar\ 191". Biinwl in
Kcnsal Green Cemt-ti'ri. Ixiiulon
Flwled tu the- Rnyal AiLidcmv uf Arl AÍ
an .^LR-^ 1885 and K.^ IWS
2 Anthony Htjbson, The Art and I.ifi' ofj
W Waterhouse RA IH-i<>-l')n. Siudio
VistaChri.qie's 198(1, p[iU2-l23. IS9.
Notation I48 (Baldr\ rcfcrcncf is The
sitidio. xxx\: u^. lwis, ppr. .W).
3 Anihiiny Hobson, ]% tt-aifdmusc.
Phaidon Pni:s.>. üindim, IW). p m.
4 Robert Buncm. .^n.iiomi uf Mi-ljiii Imly.
Lrindon [repr), 5 m h , 1'>Í2. t^f
account in HI, pp^b-i?. of Mt•nlppu.^
Lycitis who unkniiwingly met ami
married a 'fair and lovdy
gentlewoman' who in reality wafi a
lamia; based on the fictiimal, ulder
story rif the same theme and
charaaers in the fiiunh volume of/It'
irtaApoilonii (ISilMSNl hi Kkivius
Philostratus.
5 Encyciopedia Ainericarui. etln 2()fXJ, 1
(p''99|.V(p30); IiS((«i91i.
6John Keats, h Londun 31 Ocmtier l~9i.
d Rome 23 Februar^' 1821; burieil m
the Protestant Cemetery. Riimc
7 The edition u.sed here is John Keais
Selected Poetry, edjuhn Bernard, NT
and London. 19H8. Cf voKime oiijnhn
Keat.s in A Librar}' of Poetical
literature in thirty-two rohimc, nd.
Nl and London, ppPJ-l'H, with
Btirton anecdote. Vtalter luck.vm Bate,
etl. Keats. A Collection oj Critical
E-isayi, NJ. 1%'i. ¡)p2H-.M). imU-1" On
ihf rclation.ship hetween Keais'*-
Uimia anil hU Ui Belle Ikinie tans
iWen:/, see ibid. p p U í - l í . i
8 ^ Library of Poetical Literiituri.-. up cit.
pXV
9 Ihid. p 4.
II) Barnard, ed. op rit. p xiii
11 O Henr}'* 1862-19101, pMudunvmuf
William Sydne>' ftirier. American shiirt-
Moriwnter and a master ufsuqin.^e
endings.
12 Dictionary of Creek and Riimaii
Hio^aphy and MythoUif^y. Vl'illiaiii
Smith «I, Lontlnn l8f>S, II. p"l.i IIILS
monumental work of 3."1H pajies was
I'l Bram Diikstra, Ictots ofl^nvrsity,
(>dcjrd. 1980. p 3Wv-3*r9.
P Berfien lîv-ans. Dictionary of
.\fy<h<>loa\\ Nw'ïiirk, 1970. p 153.
]8Opcitatnl6alMive.p.«)H.
19 Simon Toll, Kiliel W:irw.'ick (1882-
19S] I, artist^ miKkl and actress'. The
British Art jonnial. ill, 1 (.Autumn
20011. \y\ñ\-'^',.\b\-.\. Herbert Draper
!m_i-!<W, A Ufe Study. Wmxibriiige
2003, pp-10, l-t3-l}(i.
20 ftner Trippi.7 W WaterhoiLse. London.
2002, pp9, IH9-I91.
21 Op cit at n "• ahinr. p3
22 From the Deep Walers, Toshivuki
Takamiyu, eil, San FraticLsco. 1993.
plO2.
23 James K Baker and Cathy L Baker, Miss
Muriel F(istL-r: The Jiihn William
WaterliiHise .Muid'. Ihe Journal of
Pre-Raphaelite Studies. 8 (Fall 1999),
pp"'(MÍ2.
24 .Uyth and Ronuince. Tbe Art ofJ. W
Waierhouw, Ijimlon, 199í. p5.
21 Revisetl version (Verv; IX) concerning
slumber un the mcivs' published in
The huiicator II) May 1820. Both
versions ari' puhlisheil in The Top 500
Poems. Wlliiim Harmon, etl, W, 1992,
pp537-54(l.
26 Discu.ssed at length in Hohsnn's
monograph ¡--ct' n2 ahovei; Bakerand
Baker, op cit. .Sw ht Belle Dame san.s
.Mem: llie Piiem. llic ftiet. and the
Painter' See James Kaw. .lii/rfeWe. The
Story of a Mitkl a liiintiii^. and the
ArlL^ry ofjohn ^itliam Viaterhouse.
Philaddphi;), 2(KH.
2"" Rohin Simiin. 'R<.'yn(il(ls and the
dnuhle-entenila- 'Hie Society of
Dilettanti |)i>rtrjit.s', Ihi-Hritish Art
Joimial. Ill, I. [Aultimn 2001), pp69-
28Jaquelme .Murniy. cunimeniary on 'Tlie
HLMiir> of Sex, The Middle Ages', A&E
TeleiiMiin Netwiirk. NT
2<l In the mul-liih lenmr). long-poinied
^hcles- snulier .\ la [xiubine* - a.s
worn h\ Li>mnii)ii men - nr sDulier ,1
la sabatiin.s - as w(im h\ knighis, were
a purjxirteil synilml 1 if male |x)ternT
On this haMs, the knijihis in armiiur
32 Hi>bs<m 19K(l, up at. p 122.
33 Ibid, pi 61. p76.
34 Hobson. up a t at n2 abtAv, p'^ö. also
identifies the setiuctress as a nymph.
35 Dlj.stnt op Lit at n 16 ahove, p 231)
36 Hohsun 1980. up cit, pi 125, p 128.
37 Kayv, op cit at n2(i alxwe, p 240
5K Christopher WIHKI, The I're-
Raphaelitey Ijintlon, 1981, pl44.
39BakerandBaker, kK it.
iO Aka 'Tlie Hli/jhi-th S. Tower Collection
of .\mencan and Eiimpean Works cm
Paiier' exhihited at the Gibbes
MiLseum (if Art. (iharle'^ion, SC, 11
(ktiilvr-llkrember 1991.
41 Currently Charles Rde Ltd, Londun.
42 Anthony F Hohsiin, 7')iie if/e flíKÍ UtorÉ
ofJ W Waterhouse. R. A,1978, PhD
(liss. 1 niversiiy i if U-ice.ster.
^13 Hobson ¡9811, p 197.
44 'Dream of Ihe Pa.sti Pre-Raphaelite and
.•\estheiii .Movement PainringN,
ï^ieriolourv anti Drawings. From the
Lanipin Ciilleition', exh tat. Lniversiiy
of Toronto Aft Centre. The skeich on
L'Rl-s
1
htip. ccat.sas upenn.edu -humm.Tupies,Ulithci)xl892.html
httpy ^-ww.art albums com pjintings.'(lefeult.aspx!'iti=2585
\
http:, 'wwa.artalhum.s.com.paintings/defaull.aspxi'kN 1655
•(
page 218 pictured in black hcighcenetl
with white puls t(3 rtst any confiLsion
overa third profile thought to have
¡H.Tn tliine in red chalk or pencil.
-15 riolisori 1980, up cil. On p2ii Hübstin
tiefities 'studies' and 'versions' of them
as preliminary works comparable in
si/e lo major works, '\fersioiis' may
represent changes nf ideas: .simietimes
finishetl but un sign etl anti not
mtentietl lo leave the studio The iwu
un.signed ¡ximia-Keats studies did not
leave the stuio for 21 years until s{)liJ
by ttiiterhottóe's widow nine year^
after his death.
•16 Kxh cat, Odin Vt^ner Gallery - Fine
Paintings. Toroniu, .^ugusi 2002.
47 A seleciiiiii of'ï^terhoase works oil
niher suh|ect.s and modeLs LS discussed
by Cathy I. Baker,/ if' Waterhnwie -
Idyllic Visions. Philadelphia, 2(H)4.
R'flectioas on "Ofraterhouse as an artist,
with a compilation and (ILscus.sion uf
sdectetl works.

u.sed by ^ t e r h o u s e a.\ iTientii inwl i m
pl4 of Hobsim's miinuj;r:ipli cited .il
13 Roben Gra\'es, The Greek .\lyth-i.
Londun Í95i. 1. p2Üi
U Grant, Michael & John Ha/el. \iho^
Vboin ClassicalMythoJiMfi. 1993.
Oxford. pl99.
iTjijhn M\\u.in,Rinuiisfl.ost. l u r d X .
179-191 ) The t RL reten-nces in tlie
leM are to ilkisiraiion.s ti) Ix- found un
the internet at the liK;itinib >peiified
at the Imtiuni [ii thf-c nutes.
piciure(i in Waterhouse.s lamia (PI 1|,
Tri-;truiii ami Niltle ( I HI. 4 ). and
u w p e r ' s l'>2hííí ISellc IkiifU' MfM
.liera (TRI. Hli muvi (i.ive heen ven-
\inle. and perha[)s must of all the
knight in Ciiw|iers pintin^ whiise
supine positmii. faint expression, and
limp tues suiîgesi seiiial exhaustion
while ihe gratified temme fatale preens
uver the UKK of her H inquest
30 Op ciT Jt n3 .ilxAe, p fí
31 ¡liaíi. B(x>k 23, for siiihes of horses,
chariiüs. charioteers, anil races.
hltpi.''"wwiv.)uhnwilliamwaterhi iu.se.[oni,paiiiliiigí¿'pain[ing4270.aspK
hltp. •'www.iohnwilliamwaierhou.se.com, painting,Vpaintingl359.aspx
II
http w-ww. lohn William waierho use .com. paint ings, pain ting 1385. aspx
htip •w-ftTv.jiihnwilliamw-atediouM-.cum [>aintingspaintingl391.aspx
http "www.johnftilliamwaterhuuMMum paintitigs^paiiitingl460.aspx
<i
http: ,'www.|ohnwi]liamwateriiiiu.stMutn,paintings.paintitig38O5.aipx
1(1
littp:'','www.an-alhum.scom,'painiiiiHvdefaull.a.ipj[?itl = 1688

22