Lordship Lane through history but type in your own searches

[mikeb]

John - I hesitate before disagreeing with you, but here goes: aside from the shape of the building, why do you think your photo is of Lordship Lane and not College Rd / Grange Lane?

The tollhouse on College Road was also cruxiform - see here: http://www.motco.com/map/81006/SeriesSearchPlatesFulla.asp?mode=query&artist=390&other=988&x=11&y=11

The road junction in your photo looks more like a right-angle than a "v" i.e. more like College Rd + Grange Lane than Lordship Lane + Court Lane.

[edhistory]

Mike,

Did I say "said to be"?

Here's an photo of the College Road toll gate cottage from an unusual position.

The road junction angle does not match.

I had a summer job in 1968 and I ditched Grange Lane from top to bottom.

John

[mikeb]

Rendel - it was Glennie's Corner, named after Dr Glennie who maintained an academy / school I think where the Grove Tavern now stands. Picture here: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol6/pp286-303 (scroll down halfway).

The school closed in 1825 and according to the Walford book previously linked to, Dr Glennie's house was "taken down" at about the same time. The Grove Tavern was apparently built by 1863 and is mentioned in Walford (1878).

The site of the Grove Tavern on the 1862 map was taken by "Grove Cottage" which does not look to share a footprint with either the school or the pub.

I'm not sure how all of this detail helps identify whether the painting is of 'Dulwich Grove'!

[ianr]

The 1870 OS map (1:2,500, 25" to the mile) doesn't have any house on the west side of Dulwich Court Road at the dog-leg junction with LL. Nor any large house in the position of that in the painting; just Blenheim Villa, which is much closer to the road. See the attached , or the full map at http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/view-item?i=31376. The vertical grid lines are about 375 metres, 410 yards, apart)

Correction - according to p.170 of A history of the Ordnance Survey (58MB PDF available at https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/about/overview/history.html) those 1:2,500 maps each covered an area 1.5 miles by 1 mile. That's consistent with the map's proportions, and with a distance I cross-checked on a recent online map. That would make the superimposed vertical grid lines 660 yards apart. My original calculation was based on what the catalogue said about the map's size.

[edhistory]

1842 - both locations.

[rendelharris]

mikeb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rendel - it was Glennie's Corner, named after Dr

> Glennie who maintained an academy / school I think

> where the Grove Tavern now stands.

Sorry yes - misread the 1862 map which has it as Glenny's Corner. I knew about Glennie's school from reading about Byron, but didn't realise it was on that site.

Still be interested to any responses to my point above - how can the Handy painting show Court Lane from Lordship Lane when the road in the painting runs uphill and Court Lane runs down?

[kford]

The farms check out, but the incline, missing toll bar and sweeping corner don't. Romantic Victorian artistic license?

[edhistory]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Old Handy must have been a rotten painter then, as

> s/he clearly shows the road curving down to the

> right then going slightly uphill into the distance

> - whereas I know, as it's one of my favourite

> local take a breather freewheels, that Court Lane

> runs downhill all the way into Dulwich, 72 feet of

> descent, 0 ascent!

I think we're on the way to making the point.

As you know how to do it a Google elevation on a line between Goose Green roundabout and Kings Arms crossroads should prove an interesting landscape point.

[Penguin68]

There is a lot of difference between a landscape and a topographical (mapping) painter - the former will paint what makes a good picture, the latter what is there. Although both skills were important in the 19th century (army and navy officers were taught topographical painting as part of necessary military skills before photography could replace these) landscape painting was also a common skill and exercised extensively by (particularly) middle class ladies. Using landscape painting of an area can often give you a good impression of 'the sort' of things that were in the location, but you should not expect exactitude, or map-like accuracy. Buildings in particular could often be 'pretty-fied' or improved to improve the composition (at least in the painter's eye). Trees might be moved, certainly roads would not be slavishly captured.

[rendelharris]

Here you go - what point are we proving?

Anyone interested by the way, I use www.bikehike.co.uk for elevations - very simple.

[edhistory]

You've just captured the watershed between the Peck basin and the East Dulwich streams basin.

[Ruskin]

A fav of mine is this, on Herne Hill - with the writing seemingly mocking the preservation of a beautiful - if declining building.

http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/view-item?key=SXsiUCI6eyJ2YWx1ZSI6Imhlcm5lIGhpbGwgIiwib3BlcmF0b3IiOjEsImZ1enp5UHJlZml4TGVuZ3RoIjozLCJmdXp6eU1pblNpbWlsYXJpdHkiOjAuNzUsIm1heFN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zIjozLCJhbHdheXNTdWdnZXN0IjpudWxsfX0&pg=64&WINID=1484652766168#N08O0jSRYAUAAAFZrC6ygA/96299

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is a lot of difference between a landscape

> and a topographical (mapping) painter - the former

> will paint what makes a good picture, the latter

> what is there. Although both skills were important

> in the 19th century (army and navy officers were

> taught topographical painting as part of necessary

> military skills before photography could replace

> these) landscape painting was also a common skill

> and exercised extensively by (particularly) middle

> class ladies. Using landscape painting of an area

> can often give you a good impression of 'the sort'

> of things that were in the location, but you

> should not expect exactitude, or map-like

> accuracy. Buildings in particular could often be

> 'pretty-fied' or improved to improve the

> composition (at least in the painter's eye). Trees

> might be moved, certainly roads would not be

> slavishly captured.

Well indeed, but one generally would expect a minimal standard of accuracy, such as not showing a road which runs quite steeply downhill as running uphill! I happened to ride down Court Lane today and I find it very hard to believe the attribution is correct. Titles of paintings by minor artists do get lost over time, I think some later cataloguer has just made a rough guess at location.

[rendelharris]

OK I've spent far too long on this but I do find it fascinating: just realised the LMA doesn't in fact call it "The junction of Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common" as above, just "Lordship Lane, Camberwell." So I'd suggest it could be a view looking down the hill into which Townley and Heber roads run, making the building on the left Elm House, as per this: http://www.mappalondon.com/london/south-east/peckham-rye.jpg. The bend and gradient are about right, though it doesn't explain the grand house mid picture. Thoughts?

[ianr]

They have two catalogue entries for the picture, and so possibly even two copies. Record No.20104, said to be from the Guildhall Library Wakefield Collection, is as you say. Record no.8107 is said to be LL / Court Lane (as in my first post) and to be in the main print collection.

I think it's possibly not worth worriting about unless/until a pictorial match with any of the houses emerges. And that's assuming it's a truish representation. If I had to bet, I suppose I'd still go with my initial hypothesis as the most likely, if it is indeed LL, Camberwell.

[steveo]

I went along with it being the Court Lane/L Lane junction at first then noticed that Mount Adon was missing

[edhistory]

But, but, but...

The LMA have licensed this picture for commercial exploitation:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00G35YM64/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A4CE0FZJ4BQ3L

If it is on Amazon it must be correct.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OK I've spent far too long on this but I do find

> it fascinating: just realised the LMA doesn't in

> fact call it "The junction of Lordship Lane and

> Dulwich Common" as above, just "Lordship Lane,

> Camberwell."

[ianr]

There _are_ two pictures. Here are the lower left corners of each side by side. Note too the ?path leading left over the ditch. Their given dates are 1860 and c1860 respectively.

There was a James Cleverley Mandy whose death, age 48, was registered in Southampton in 1869. He married Rosina Wilson widow of the late John Wilson of Calcutta, at Wandsworth Old Church on 16 July 1859 (FreeBMD; Times announcement of 20/7)

If he's the man, the 1810 dating of Collage record no.18649 (signed watercolour of Monument to Sir Richard Allington, Rolls Chapel, Chancery Lane) is also questionable. I've not found any other JCMs.