lg ote ENO Te aa ana A A SES aD rank Ee SS as nar sea ee EON aa ey ate, PR pee ee ee a Ee a, Oh a NE ESS ee —— j ey SIEGAL Riamagaoteatener sesame eran ETI See one os Se at ee aS AMERICAN MINIATURES \} ae Ths Aa . a m ~ “ ~ * 3 Epwarbp GREENE MALBONE By HIMSELF AMERICAN MINIATURES 1730—1850 ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-THREE PORTRAITS SELECTED WITH A DESCRIPTIVE ACCOUNT By HARRY B. WEHLE Curator of Paintings THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART ce A BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF THE ARTISTS By THEODORE BOLTON GARDEN CITY PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. Garden City New York . eae SS Sade th ; an . uel! GARDEN CITY PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. wr 4 . i Oe ah ta " 7 ‘ € © jj it t ach i eu aS ree * F . ; COPYRIGHT, 1927, BY DOUBLEDAY, PAGE & COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES AT THE COUNTRY LIFE PRESS, GARDEN CITY, N. Y. FOREWORD Tae American public has registered of recent years a very widespread and vivid in- terest in the personalities and in the fine and applied arts of this country in earlier days. In response to such a growing appetite for the finer things of America’s past, the authorities of the Metropolitan Museum of Art determined to hold this year an exhibition of early miniature portraits, feeling that this was one of the American arts which had thus far failed to receive its due share of attention, == : The miniature portrait, because of its very size, presents peculiar difficulties of attribution and classification. The factor of pictorial composition plays little part in such works, while important considerations are the artists’ personal chords of colour and the almost microscopic minutiz of individual style. Neither of these qualities of the miniature lend themselves particularly well to recording by means of the photo- graph, which has proved such an important factor in the classification of other sorts of art objects. Thus the bringing together for the purposes of exhibition of a consider- able number of the miniatures themselves gave such a valuable opportunity for direct comparison that it seemed well to improve the occasion. Hence this book, which con- tains certain new attributions but which I well realize is only a step in the exploration of this sufficiently appealing branchlet of art. The value of the book will depend largely upon the numerous illustrations both in colour and in black-and-white, which are in practically all cases the same sizes as the miniatures themselves. _ Before me have gone William Dunlap, the “American Vasari,” who was by no means a stupid man, and from whose pages I am not ashamed to draw copiously, and also Anne Hollingsworth Wharton, who writes with delightful style and, metaphori- cally speaking, knows the American social register of four and five generations ago as intimately as any living social aspirant knows the sacred contents of such actual volumes up to date. To place at the reader’s disposal many matters of fact concerning the lives of the miniature painters under consideration, the compilation of which would have daunted me and which would have badly clogged the flow of the General Introduction, Theo- Vv vi FOREWORD dore Bolton, who has written before this on the subject of American miniatures, was called upon to supply his Biographical Dictionary. I am also indebted to him for cer- tain suggestions, as I am to Mr. Ruel P. Tolman, Mr. John Hill Morgan, and Mr. Arthur P. Howard. To the courtesy of Mr. Horace Wells Sellers I owe the knowledge of certain facts about the Peale family, and I have Miss Eleanor B. Saxe of the Metro- politan Museum of Art to thank for her great kindness in dating for me many minia.. tures by means of the sitters’ costumes and styles of dressing the hair. The photographs and notes at the Frick Art Reference Library have been of value in helping toward tracing some of the miniatures. Naturally, also, I owe very special gratitude to the owners who have so courteously allowed me to study their precious miniatures and to use them as illustrations in this book. The owners’ names are to be found in the List of Illustrations. Perhaps I should add here some explanation of the chronological groupings into which I have divided my material. The division of early American objects into Colonial, Revolutionary, and Early Republican (or Early Constitutional) has become so cus- tomary as to seem almost obligatory, and I have no doubt that some students, if any should read this book, will consider as quite beside the point my chapter headings which are based old-fashionedly upon the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries. This simple old classification was reverted to quite deliberately, however, for it has seemed to me that, by a rare stroke of good luck for our fallible memories, the passage from the one century into the other coincides about as nicely as one could wish with a certain change in the spirit of American painting. Art has, in fact, not to do with underlying philosophic or political causes but sim- ply with their social consequences. These social consequences which, in the instance we are considering, no doubt sprang from the high cost of European wars, the writings of Rousseau, and a score of other causes well back in the Eighteenth Century, are sharply noticeable in America around the year 1800. The Declaration of Independence came in 1776, but it is the general enthusiasm over Thomas Jefferson’s rumpled woollen stockings which times the actual percolation of the republican idea into the American mind. Applied to miniature portraits this idea surely never came with the Revolu- tionary War, or else the confusion, e.g., of Copley’s miniatures, painted before 1774, with Dunkerley’s and Benbridge’s, painted twelve to fifteen years later, would never have occurred. No observer with the slightest experience would hesitate to recognize as an Eighteenth Century work the average miniature by Ramage, most of whose tiny portraits were painted around 1790, just.as he would recognize such works as _ Robert Field’s miniature of James Earle (1802) and Jarvis’s Portrait of a Man (a very’ j 3 : FoREWORD Vil few years later) as having distinctly the Nineteenth Century flavour. The entire cul- tural revolution of the period, the transition from a polished aristocracy, of which Federalism was the last stand, to the ardent romantic naturalism of the Jeffersonians, may without frivolity be said to be symbolized by the change from the powdered wig to the (no doubt studied) informality of the natural hair cut shortish and brushed forward in the style called “au coup de vent.” H. B. W. New York, 1927. CONTENTS ForEWORD I. The Appeal of the Gaitere II. The Origin of Miniatures. Il. The Use of Ivory . IV. The Earliest American Works Colonists Portrayed in England—John RVAtsorme Theta VY. The Eighteenth Century in Philadelphia and Farther South Hesselius—Pratt—West—C. W. Peale—James Peale alton Rene bridge VI. The Eighteenth Century in New England . eet Pethinn--Dunkerley—Savage—Trumboll VII. Foreign Artists at the Turn of the Century Ramage—A. Robertson—W. Rohareenes Ficld en reHese putas VIII. The Ripe Moment Malbone—Trott—Fraser IX. Philadelphia Again—and Baltimore : Rembrandt Peale—Raphael Peale—Anna C. Peale Me: J. See Sully—Freeman—Saunders X. Early Nineteenth Century New York . Dickinson—Dunlap—Jarvis—Wood—Inman XI. New York Later in the Nineteenth Century : Cummings—Catlin—Dodge—N. Roser MaaDongslnann Hall XII. Nineteenth Century New England . Williams—Stuart—Goodridge—Alvan CliskeStaieen XIII. The March of Progress A BioGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF THE ARTISTS GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY . INDEX PAGE 15 24 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS [The miniatures are painted in water colours on ivory except where otherwise stated.] FRonTISPIECE MALBONE, Self-portrait. At the age of twenty. In Colour Signed: E. G. M. 1797. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., Puate I. III. New York City.) Warson, Self-portrait, 1720. India ink and pencil on paper. Inscribed: AETS. 35. (Owned by Mrs. Frank E. Johnson, Yonkers, N. Y.). Artist Unknown, Portrait of Mrs. Henry Pratt, born, 1711, Rebecca Claypoole. Painted about 1750-1760. (Owned by Mrs. William M. McCauley, Ithan, Pa.) Martuew Pratt, Portrait of Elizabeth West. Life size, in oils. (Owned by the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.) Matruew Pratt, Portrait of Mrs. Thomas Hopkinson. Painted about 1768-1770. (Owned by Mrs. Francis T. Red- wood, Baltimore, Md.) JEREMIAH THECUS, Portrait of Elizabeth Rothmaler. Life size, in oils. (Owned by the Brooklyn Museum.) . JEREMIAH Tuets, Portrait of Mrs. Jacob Motte (?). Born Elizabeth Martin; married 1725. (Qwned by Mrs. J. Madison Taylor, Philadelphia, Pa.) BENJAMIN WEST, Self-portrait. At the age of eighteen. West gave this miniature to his sweetheart, Miss Elizabeth Steele of Philadelphia. It was acquired from a member of her family. (Owned by Mrs. John Hill Morgan, New York City.) CHARLES WiLLSON PEALE, Portrait of George Wash- ington. Supposedly painted in 1777. (Owned by the Metro- politan Museum of Art.) i CHARLES WILLSON PEALE, Portrait of Comte de Ro- chambeau. About 1780. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) x1 at page 2 at page 3 IV. In Colour List or ILLUSTRATIONS CHarues Wiutuson Peas, Portrait of Captain An- drew Summers, of Philadelphia, 1742-1806. (Owned by Her- bert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.). CHARLES WILLSON PEALE, Portrait of the Hon. William Bingham, died, 1804. Delegate to Congress and U. S. Senator. Painted in 1770. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) Cuarues WILLsoNn PEALE, Portrait of Rachel Brew- er Peale, his first wife, and their daughter. 1771. (Owned by Mrs. Sabin W. Colton, Jr., Bryn Mawr, Pao: CHARLES WILLSON PEALE, Portrait of Mrs. Michael Taney, of Calvert County, Md. Mother of Chief Justice Taney. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City) es ee ee JAMES PEALE, Portrait of his nephew, Rembrandt Peale. Signed: I P 1795. (Owned by Mrs. John Hill Morgan, New York City.) JAMES PEALE, Portrait of Mrs. William E. H ulings, 1770-1854. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) CHARLES WILLSON PEALE, Portrait of George Wash- ington. Inscribed on frame: Presented by Washington to Anna Constable, 1785. (Owned by Miss Josephine B. Foster, New Haven, Conn.) CHARLES WILLSON PEALE, Portrait of Hannah Summers (Mrs. Andrew Summers). (Owned by Herbert Du- Puy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, Self-portrait. (Owned by Dr. John E. Stillwell, New York City.) Joke Wee JAMES Pra tg, Portrait of Mrs. John Wilson, of Borden- town, N. J. Signed: I P 1797. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City.) JamMES PEHaue, Portrait of his daughter, Anna Claypoole Peale, the miniature painter. (Owned by Ernest L. Parker, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa.) JAMES PEALE, Portrait of Paul Beck, Jr., 1757-1844 : xii at page at page 6 List or ILLusTRATIONS merchant of Philadelphia. Signed: I P 1795. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) JAMES PEALE, Portrait of Mary Claypoole Peale and daughter. Signed: I P 1787. On the reverse is a self-portrait. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) JAMES PEALE, Portrait of Mary Claypoole Peale. 1753- 1829. Wife of the artist. Signed: J P 1788. On the reverse is a self-portrait. (Owned by Ernest L. Parker, Esq., Philadel- Poin a.) PAPO ar wen. ore TT Clade he JAMES PEALE, Portrait of Dr. William E. Hulings, of Philadelphia, 1765-1839. Signed: I P 1789. (Owned by Her- bert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) JAMES PEALE, Portrait of Mrs. Mordecai Sheftall, of Savannah, born Nellie Bush of Philadelphia. Signed: I P 1797. (Owned by Mrs. Walter M. Brickner, New York City.) JAMES PEALE, Self-portrait. Signed: I P 1787. On re- verse, his wife and baby. Lent by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City. JAMES PEALE, Portrait of Anne-Anry Pierre Bellon de Pont, 1772-1854. Signed: I P 1797. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) JAMES PEALE, Portrait of Mrs. Josiah Pinckney, of Charleston. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) . BENBRIDGE, Portrait of Elizabeth Ann Timothy (Mrs. John Williamson, of Savannah, Ga.). (Owned by the Metro- politan Museum of Art.) BENBRIDGE, Portrait of Mrs. Christopher Gadsden (born Wragg). (Owned by Miss Marie H. Heyward, Charleston,S.C.) BENBRIDGE, Portrait of Captain Charles Shepheard. Died at Savannah, Ga., 1779. (Owned by Ernest L. Parker, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa.) BENBRIDGE, Portrait of Mrs. William Somersall, born Sarah Hartley of Charleston, married in 1774. (Owned by Mrs. D. Maitland Armstrong, New York City.) Ropert Futon, Portrait of his wife, Harriet Inwing- ston Fulton. (Owned by the New York Historical Society.) . xii at page 10 at page 11 at page 10 List or ILLUSTRATIONS VIIL Rosert Fuuton, Portrait of Mrs. Stephen Van Rensse- IX. laer III, born Cornelia Patterson. (Owned by the Metropoli- tan Museum of Art.) Rospert Futon, Portrait of a Lady. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) . CopueEy, attributed to, Portrait of William Ree M: ‘ller (In a private collection.) Copuey, Self-portrait. On porcelain. Said to have been painted in London. (Owned by Copley Amory, Esq., Wash- ington, D. C.) Copuey, Portrait of Samuel Cary. (Owned by Miss Hester Cunningham, East Milton, Mass.) CorueEy, Portrait of Joseph Barrell. (Qwned by Mrs. Wil- liam A. Putnam, Brooklyn, N. Y.) Copuey, Portrait of Mrs. John Melville, born Deborah Scollay, 1737-1794. She married Dr. Melville in 1762, and Copley is said to have painted this miniature as a wedding present to her. (Owned by the Worcester Art Museum.) Cor ey, Portrait of Mrs. Samuel Cary. (Owned by Miss Hester Cunningham, East Milton, Mass.) SavaGez, Self-portrait. On the reverse is a portrait of his brother-in-law, Eben Seaver. (Owned by the Worcester Art Museum.) . CHARLES WILLSON PEALE, Portratt of once Na- thanael Greene, 1742-1786. (Owned by the Metropolitan Mu- seum of Art.) DuNKERLEY, Portrait of a Man. Initials on back: E B. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) DUNKERLEY, Portrait of Mrs. Mary Burroughs. En-— graved on back of frame: Mary Burroughs Obt. March 28th 1838 AE 72—J. Dunkerly 1787. (Owned by Bryson Bur- roughs, Esq., Flushing, N. Y.) Henry PewunamM, Portrait of William Wagnall Stevens. Monogram in back: WWS. (Owned by Mrs. Horatio G. Cur- tis, Boston, Mass.) TRUMBULL, Portrait of William Loughton Smith, 1758-' XIV at page 11 at page 18 XII. XIII. XIV. List oF ILLUSTRATIONS 1812. Representative from South Carolina to the First Con- gress. Painted in 1792. Oil on wood. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) CW 7 Se he oi cole: TRUMBULL, Portrait of Thomas Jefferson. Oil on wood. Painted in 1787. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) TRUMBULL, Portrait of John Laurance, 1750-1810. Mem- ber from New York to the First Congress, and later Senator. (Owned by the New York Historical Society.) ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, Portrait of his wife, Eliza Abramse Robertson. Married in 1794. (Owned e Dr. John E. Stillwell, New York City.) 2 RaMaaGbe, Portrait of a Man. (Owned by Mrs. Miles White, Jr., Baltimore, Md.) RamaGkE, Portrait of Elbridge Gerry, 1744-1814. Signer of the Declaration of Independence; Congressman from Massa- chusetts, 1789-1793. (Owned by Elbridge T. Gerry, Esq. New York City.) RamaaGe, Portrait of Mrs. Elbridge Gerry. (Owned by Elbridge T. Gerry, Esq., New York City.) RamaGe, Mrs. Gulian Ludlow of New York; born Maria Ludlow. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) Exours, Portrait of Henry Browse Treat, Collector of the Port of New Orleans. Painted about 1805. Signed: H. Elouis. (Owned by Mrs. D. J. McCarthy, Philadelphia, Pa.) RaMaGks, Portrait of John Pintard, 1759-1818, of New York. Merchant and philanthropist. Painted in 1787. (Owned by the New York Historical Society.) RaMAGE, Portrait of Mrs. John Pintard, born Elizabeth Brasher, 1765-1838. (Owned by the New York Historical Society.) Ramaae, Portrait of George Washington. (From the Munn Collection.) Probaby not from life. (Owned by the Metro- politan Museum of Art.) RaMaGeE, Portrait of an Officer. (In a private collection.) Xv. at page 19 at page 18 at page 19 at page 22 PCV. In Colour XVI. XVII. List oF ILLUSTRATIONS WaLTER ROBERTSON, Portrait of George Washington. From Robert Field’s engraving of 1795. Painted, 1794. . Trott, Portrait of Charles Wilkins, 1805. In the back, on a paper cut from a letter, is written: “‘Good-bye, Chas. Wil- kins.” In pencil is added: “‘Lexington, Ky. July 1824.” (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) WaLtER ROBERTSON, Portrait of Martha Washington, born Martha Dandridge, 1732-1802. Married first Daniel Parke Custis. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) RAMAGE, Portrait of Antony Rutgers, of New York. (Owned by Mrs. John Hill Morgan, New York City.) FRASER, Portrait of Mrs. Theodore Gourdin, of Charleston. Painted in 1826. On the reverse is an earlier portrait of Theodore Gourdin, probably by Fraser. (Owned by Mrs. John Hill Morgan, New York City.) Henry Pevuuanm, Portrait of Stephen Hooper, of New- buryport, Mass. Painted in 1773. (Owned by the Metropoli- tan Museum of Art.) . MSS Ee 5 : WatTtEeR RoBERTSON, Portrait of ines Rose Tidy. man, of Charleston. Born, 1773; married John Drayton in 1794, Painted in 1793. (Qwned by Charles D. Drayton, Esq., Washington, D. C.) WaLTER RosperRtTson, Portrait of Augustus Vallette Van Horne, of New York, 1765-1853. (Owned by the Metro- politan Museum of Art.) WattEeR RoBeEeRTsON, Portrait of Mrs. Philip Tidy- man, of Charleston, S. C. Painted in 1793. (Owned by Charles D. Drayton, Esq., Washington, D. C.) WALTER RoBERTSON, Portrait of Major Jonathan Has- kell, 1755-1814. In the U. S. Army, 1777-1796. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) : WaLttEeR Ropertson, Portratt of Lawrence Reid Yates, died, 1796; merchant of New York. (Owned by the Estate of Gilbert S. Parker.) Rospert Fiexp, Portrait of Richard Lockerman. Signed: XVI at page 23 at page 24 at page 30 XVIII. XIX. List oF ILLUSTRATIONS R.F. 1803. (Owned by Mrs. Miles White, Jr., Baltimore, Md.) RoBERT Freup, Portrait of Mrs. Richard Lockerman, born Frances Townley Chase, of Annapolis, Md. Married in 1803. Signed: R.F. 1808. (Qwned by Mrs. Miles White, Jr., Baltimore, Md.) ROBERT FIELD, Portrait of Dr. James Sergeant Ewing, 1770-1823. Son of Rev. John Ewing, Provost of the Univer- sity of Pennsylvania. Signed: R.F. 1798. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) A: RoBERT Frevp, Portrait of George Washington. Se R. F. 1801. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) RoBERT FIELD, Portrait of Mary Tayloe Lloyd, 1784- 1859, of Wye House, Talbot County, Md. Married Francis Scott Key in 1802. Signed: R.F. 1802 (or 1812?). (Owned by Mrs. John Rutledge Abney, New York City.) ; PxEeTico.Las, Portrait of a Man. Supposed to be Robert Callender. Signed: P.A. Peticolas 1796. (Owned by Mrs. John C. Thorn, New York City.) Artist UNKNowN. Portrait of John Hancock, states- man; the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. Painted about 1780. (Owned by Mrs. Frederick A. Savage, Baltimore, Md.) ELKANAH TISDALE, Portrait of Anthony Bleecker (?). Painted about 1800. (Owned by Mrs. John Hill Morgan, New York City.) Artist UNKNOWN. Portrait of Mrs. Peter deLancey, born Elizabeth Colden. Painted about 1780; possibly by Benbridge. (Owned by Mrs. Williams Burden, New York City.) Bircu, Portrait of General Lafayette. Enamel. Inscribed on back: General Lafayette as at the anniversary of the Battle of York Town Oct 19th 1824 by W Birch from A Sheffer. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City) Ma.uBone, Portrait of Mrs. Richard Coffin Derby, of Ssent Mass. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) XVil at page 31 at page 34 at page 35 XXI. XXII. In Colour _ XXIII. List oF ILLUSTRATIONS MALBONE, Portrait of Rebecca Gratz, of Philadelphia. Died, 1869. (Owned by Miss Rachel Gratz Nathan, New York City.) MAaLBoONngeE, Portrait of Miss Poinsett, of Charleston, S. C. Painted in 1802. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City.) MaLBONE, Portrait of Nicholas Power. Painted probably in 1794. (Owned by the Providence Athenzeum.) . : MALBONE, Portrait of Solomon Moses. (Owned by Miss Rachel Gratz Nathan, New York City.) MauBone, Portrait of Mrs. Benjamin Foissin Trapier. Signed: Malbone. (Owned by Mrs. J. Madison Taylor, Phila- delphia, Pa.) M aLBonge, Portrait of Charles Harris, of Boston, at the age of twenty. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) wok ah Sige ee see gee ee ae MauBonet, Portrait of Mrs. James Lowndes. Painted, 1803-1804, in Charleston. (Owned by the Metropolitan Mu- seum of Art.) MausBone, Portrait of David Moses, 1776-1858. (Owned by Miss Rachel Gratz Nathan, New York City.) MausBone, Portrait of Joel R. Poinsett, of Charleston, 1779-1851. Statesman and diplomatist. Painted in Charles- ton, probably 1803. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City.) FRASER, Portrait of Jane Winthrop, born 1792, a niece of the artist. Painted about 1808. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) . a. aa ou oe. a ula ae ae MALBONE, Portrait of a Lady with a Pink Scarf. (Owned by the Estate of Gilbert S. Parker.) MauBone, Portrait of Nicholas Fish. (Owned by William Beverley Rogers, Esq., New York City.) MALBONE, Portrait of Archibald Taylor, of Georgetown, 5. C. Painted probably 1804. (Owned by Mrs. John Hill Morgan, New York City.) Masons, Portrait of Thomas M eans, of South Carolina, XVill at page 34 at page 36 at page 38 XXYV. XXVI. List oF ILLUSTRATIONS born in Boston, 1767, died in S. C., 1828. (Owned by Mrs. David du Bose Gaillard, Washington, D. C.) MatBone, Portrait of a Man. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) MawusBone, Portrait of Mrs. Thomas Amory of Boston, born Elizabeth Bowen. (Owned by Miss Helen Amory Ernst, Washington, D. C.) Matusone, Portrait of the Little Scotch Girl. Supposed to have been painted in England. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City.) . : iy es Trott, Portrait of Nicholas Biddle. Financier. Went to Europe 1804 as Secretary to John Armstrong, U.S. Minister to France. Returned to America, 1807. Painted, 1807-1809. (Owned by Edward Biddle, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa.) — Trott, Portrait of Lewis Adams. Inscription on back: Lewis Adams Septem™ 1828 by B. Trott. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) Trott, Portrait of a Man. Painted about 1822. (Owned by the Estate of Gilbert S. Parker.) é Trot, Portrait of Mrs. James Greenleaf. After a portrait by Stuart. (Owned by Mrs. Nicholas Luquer, Washington, DC. Trott, Portrait of Mrs. Alexander N. Macomb, born Julia Anna McWhorter. Painted in Newark, N. J., in 1823. (Owned by the New York Historical Society.) Trot, Portrait of Peregrine Wroth, M.D., 1786-1879, of Chestertown, Md. Inscription in back in sitter’s handwriting: Peregrine Wroth, painted by Mr. Trott, Sansom St. Philadel- phia, Anno Domini 1806. (Owned by Peregrine Wroth, Esq., Baltimore, Md.) Trott, Portrait of Edward Johnson Coale, 1776-1832. An unfinished miniature. (Owned by Mrs. Francis T. Redwood, Baltimore, Md.) XXVIII. Fraser, Portrait of Sarah Ladson, of Charleston. Later Mrs. Gilmor. Formerly attributed to Malbone, but evidently x1xX at page 42 at page 43 at page 42 at page 43 XXVIII. XXIX. XXX. XXXII. List or ILLUSTRATIONS an early work of Fraser, painted about 1802. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) FraASsER, Portrait of Henry Ogden, of New York. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) MauBone, Portrait of Eliza Fenno, Painted in New York, 1803. She married, 1811, Gulian Crommelin Verplanck, and died in Paris, 1817. (Owned by Miss Louisa Verplanck Richards, New York City.). aes FRASER, Portrait of Dr. Alexander Baron, ie 1745, e Aberdeen. Came in 1769 to America and practised medicine in Charleston, where he lived until 1819. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) Fraser, Portrait of Mrs. Ralph Izard, of Charleston. Born Alice deLancey, of New York. Painted at the age of eighty. (Owned by deLancey Kountze, me New York City.) Pie FRASER, Portrait of Funke Kinloch Wee uger. Cae to Lafayette by the City of Charleston in 1825. Colonel Huger rescued Lafayette from the prison at Olmutz. Signed: Fraser. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City.) FRASER, Portrait of James Gourdin, of Charleston, S. C. Inscribed in back: painted by Ch Fraser Charleston July 1824. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) Fieup. Enlarged detail. (See also pl. XXXVII.] C. W. Prate. Enlarged detail. [See also pl. III.] MauBone. Enlarged detail. [See also pl. XXII.] FRASER. Enlarged detail. [See also pl. XV.] ; RAPHAEL PEALE, Portratt of a Man. Signed: R P 1800. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) Louis A. Couuas, Portrait of a Lady. Signed: Collas 1818. Painted presumably in New Orleans. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City.) THOMAS Suuty, Portrait of Mrs. Edward Shoemaker, born Ann Caroline Giles, of Baltimore. (Owned by Sidell Tilghman, Esq., Madison, N. J.) xX at page 50 at page 51 at page 50 at page 51 a ee, Fe ; Ea : 4 XXXII. XXXITT. XXXIV. List or ILLUSTRATIONS RAPHAEL PHALE, Portrait of Doyle E. Sweeney. Served in the War of 1812 and as Captain in the Mexican War; died, 1847, at Pueblo. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.). Lee Meade OM 20. Mary JanE Simes, Portrait of Mrs. John Christian Brune. (Owned by Mrs. Francis T. Redwood, Baltimore, Md.) LAWRENCE Suuty, Portrait of a Lady. Painted about 1795-1800. (In a private collection.) Anna C. PErausz, Portrait of Eleanor Britton. Painted at the age of about eighteen. She later married William Musgrave of Philadelphia. Signed: Anna C. Peale 1826. (Owned by Mrs. John Hill Morgan, New York City.) Artist Unxnown, Portrait of Dolly Madison (Mrs. James Madison). Formerly attributed to Anna Claypoole Peale. (Owned by Mrs. John Hill Morgan, New York City.) Tuomas Suuty, Portrait of his wife, Mary Sully. (Owned by Ernest L. Parker, Esq., Philadelphia, Pa.) . SAUNDERS, Portrait of Sophia Carroll Sargent. Signed: G L Saunders. (Owned by Mrs. Sophia Frick Schenck, New York City.) SAUNDERS, Portrait of Thomas Bartow Sargent. Ser. G L Saunders. (Owned = Mrs. Sa Frick Schenck, New York City.) . cts ec a er ate JARVIS, Portrait of Miss Anderson. Signed: JARVIS. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) DicxkinsoOn, Portrait of Mrs. Robert Watts, born Matilda Ridley. Artist’s professional card in the back. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) DicKinsown, Portrait of Robert Dorlon, lawyer, of Cats- kill, N. Y. Signed: on back A Dickinson 1806. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) Ezra AMES, Portrait of Gilbert Stuart, 1755-1828, the celebrated portrait painter. Formerly attributed to Dickin- son. (Owned by the New York Historical Society.) . XxI at page 58 at page 59 at page 58 at page 59 XXXV. XXXVI. List oF ILLUSTRATIONS ARTIST UNKNOWN, Portrait of Mrs. Phebe Carr Huger, of Charleston. Painted about 1845. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City.) BaRrRatTT, Portrait of Josiah Elder, of Harrisburg, Pa. (Owned by Mrs. Huger Elliott, New York City.) MacDoveatt, Portrait of Henry Clay. Inscription in the back states that it was painted at New York in 1840 or 1841. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) CatTuin, Portrait of Charles Edwin Bergh I, 1802-1876. Signed: G. Catlin 1824. (Owned by W. Christian Bergh, Esq., New York City.) Artist UNKNowN. Portrait of a Lady of the Sully Family. Painted about 1860, and revealing the influence of the daguerreotype. (Owned by Mrs. John Hill Morgan, New York City.) Joun W. Donas, Portrait of George Catlin, the artist. A paper inside in an old handwriting: Painted by John W. Dodge, Miniature Painter, No. 42-Franklin St, M ay 21, 1835. Likeness of George Catlin. (Owned by the me Museum of Art.) InmMAN, Portrait of a Lady. (Owned be eer L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) W oop, Portrait of John Greene Proud, born, 1776. Painted in New York, 1812. (Owned by Mrs. Francis T. Redwood, Baltimore, Md.) DUNLAP, Portrait of Mrs. Aaron Olmsted, 1758-1826, born Mary Langrell Bigelow. Painted probably in Hartford in 1812. (Owned by Miss Mary O. Marshall, Charleston, S. C.) W oop, Portrait of a Man. Initials J D in back. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.). XXXVIT. Inman, Portrait of James Bogert, Jr. (Owned by Herbert In Colour L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) Dickinson, Portrait of J. W. Gale (?). Artist’s profes- sional card in the back. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) Ropert Fie xp, Portrait of James Earle, of Centerville, Xxli at page 66 at page 67 XXXVITI. XLII. List oF ILLUSTRATIONS Md. Signed: R F 1802. (Owned by Mrs. Miles White, Jr., Baltimore, Md.) JaRvis, Portrait of a Man. Signed: JARVIS 1809. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.). InMAN, Portrait of a Man. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) InMAN, Portrait of a Lady. (Qwned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) Inman, Portrait of a Lady (below). (Owned by the Met- ropolitan Museum of Art.) Ann Haut, Portrait of the artist with her sister, Eliza Hall Ward, and Master Henry Hall Ward. Painted in 1828. (Owned by Mrs. Lewis Gouverneur Morris, New York City.) Inman, Portrait of Mrs. Alexander Hamilton, born Elizabeth Schuyler. Painted at the age of sixty-eight. Signed: Inman 1825. (Owned by Alexander Hamilton, Esq., New York City.) Cumminas, Portrait of Jane Cook Cummings, the artist’s wife. (Owned by Miss Lydia M. Cummings, New York RCM ee, tc te nt OA wk) ea Pree CummMinas, Portrait of Benson J. Lossing, the Ameri- can historian and editor. Signed: Cummings. (Owned by Mrs. Frank E. Johnson, Yonkers, N. Y.) Artist Unxnown. Portrait of a lady of the Hancock Family, probably by John Carlin. Painted about 1840. (Owned by Mrs. Frederick A. Savage, Baltimore, Md.) NATHANIEL ROGERS, Portrait of a Lady. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City.) NatHANIEL Roacers, Portrait of Mrs. Gabriel Manigault. Signed: N. Rogers, N. Y. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) NaTHANIEL ROGERS, Portrait of Edward Armstrong, in British Army uniform. (Owned by Mrs. D. Maitland Armstrong, New York City.) rg ee By AF Xxlil at page 68 at page 74 at page 75 at page 74 at page 75 at page 82 XLII. XLIV. XLVII. List oF ILLUSTRATIONS Artist Unknown. Portrait of a Lady. (In a private collection.) Ezra Ames, Portrait of Jesse Hawley, 1773-1842. (Owned by the New York Historical Society.) LAMBDIN, Portrait of Polly Stuart Webb Vincent, 1807- 1883. Inscription on back states that it was painted by J. R. Lambdin, New York, December, 1850. (Owned by Mrs. John Hill Morgan, New York City.) . , Witxurams, Portrait of Henry Burroughs. Signed: Williams 1810. On the back a note: . . . presented to Miss Catherine H. Greene whom I married Feb. , 1814. I was 27 years old when this was painted. H. B. (Owned by Bryson Burroughs, Esq., Flushing, N. Y.) WixuuraMs, Portrait of Edward Coverly. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) Artist UnNKNowNn. Portrait of a Lady. Painted about 1800. (Owned by Mrs. Charles Hallam Keep, New York City.) 2 VS DA ok Oa ne SARAH GOODRIDGE, Portrait of Daniel Webster. Painted about 1826-1828. (Owned by Herbert L. Pratt, Esq., New York City.) SARAH GooprRipGE, Portrait of General Knoz. After the miniature by Gilbert Stuart. (Owned by Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me.) GILBERT Stuart, Portrait of General Knox. Friend and military adviser of Washington. This miniature was copied from the oil portrait of Knox. (Owned by Mrs. Andrew van Pelt, Chestnut Hill, Pa.) ihe SARAH GoopRiIpDG@E, Portrait of Mrs. Benjamin Joy, of Boston. Painted about 1823-1824. (Owned by R. T. Haines Halsey, Esq., New York City.) SARAH GooprRipGe, Portrait of Gilbert Stuart. Painted supposedly in 1825. (Owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.) sh tks a CuaRk, Portrait of the Hon. Walter Forward, statesman. (Owned by Herbert DuPuy, Esq., Pittsburgh, Pa.) XXIV at page 83 at page 90 at page 91 at page 91 - . gy el EAE Ee on ere ep Se Oe ee See ee a ho ea XLVIII. List oF ILLUSTRATIONS CuaRrK, Portrait of Mrs. Alvan Clark, the artist’s wife. (In a private collection.) Saran GoopRIDGE, Portrait of Theophilus Parsons. Signed on back: Painted by S. Goodridge November 1820. (Owned by Mrs. Percy S. Mallett, Garden City, L. I.) Sraiaa, Portrait of John Inman Linzee. Signed: R. M. Staigg, 1847. (Owned by Mrs. John T. Linzee, New York City.) Sraraa, Portrait of Mrs. John Inman Linzee. Signed: R. M. Staigg 1846. (Owned by Mrs. John T. Linzee, New York City.) . XXxV at page 90 at page 98 AMERICAN MINIATURES 1730-1850 by Harry B. WEHLE AMERICAN MINIATURES I. THE APPEAL OF THE MINIATURE Eldeace WALPOLE, who was a connoisseur of miniatures, as he was of most forms of art, wrote in praise of one of the greatest of miniaturists,! “If a glass could expand Cooper’s pictures to the size of Van Dyck’s, they would appear to have been painted for that proportion.” The implications of this penetrating remark were patently de- veloped and particularized some years later by the American miniaturist, Thomas Seir Cummings.’ “‘ Miniature painting,” according to Cummings, “is governed by the same principles as any other branch of the art, and works in miniature should possess the same beauty of composition, correctness of drawing, breadth of light and shade, brilliancy, truth of colour, and firmness of touch as works executed on a larger scale. ... [t may be asked, what is the proper preparatory course of study for the miniature painter? We should unquestionably answer, the same as for any other branch of the art. It is in the mechanical part only that it differs.” The immediate success which certain great portrait painters have achieved when they occasionally turned to painting in miniature would seem to indicate that even the mechanical part of the miniature is no important deterrent to the painter who knows the general basis of his art. Holbein, as we shall see, was said by Van Mander to have “needed only to see some work in miniature to know how to do it himself,” and brilliant occasional miniatures are known by such masters of the oil technique as Goya, Fragonard, and Sir Thomas Lawrence. In the miniatures of Goya and Lawrence we see a diminished reflection of their work in oil, the work of Fragonard recalls the style of his spirited wash drawings, while a close examination of Holbein’s miniatures reveals again the thrilling rightness of his drawing and hatching in the crayon por- traits. In America, miniatures by such artists as Inman and Sully can readily be rec- 1See Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting in England, 1762-1771, HU, 145. *See William Dunlap, History of the Arts of Design in the United States, 1834 edition, II, pp. 10-14. 1 AMERICAN MINIATURES ognized as the work of painters accustomed to working in oil, so broadly is the colour laid on. The single beautiful miniature by Gilbert Stuart is another case brilliantly in point. aa Yet such works as these are the exception rather than the rule, and the remarks of Walpole and Cummings, like most illuminating observations, need some qualifying. The great miniaturists, especially since the coming of ivory as the substance upon which to work, have in general used a method of painting which contains common elements peculiar to this genre and quite unlike the procedure followed in oil painting. Something may be added to our understanding of the art of the miniaturist if we give a little consideration, first, to the peculiar methods of his craft, and second, to two attributes of miniatures which make for their popularity with collectors. _ As compared with the liberties allowable in painting in oil, the ivory, where its qualities are properly exploited, makes rather exigent demands. It requires of the painter a surface texture without so much as a pinhead’s area of flaw. In a head painted upon so tiny a scale the slightest injustice in the values, the minutest inconsistency in the handling mars the perfection, the least clotting of the background disturbs the _vibration and purity of the effect. But once the painter has laid his washes on the ivory, any attempt of his to correct his surface in the quest for perfection becomes hazardous almost to impossibility. For even though he were to wait years (or centuries) for the water colours to set in the ivory surface, he would find at the end that one vigorous pass of a moist brush or rag would suffice to wash the pigments clean away.! Naturally, therefore, in order to obtain reliable results, painters of miniatures with few exceptions have learned to build up their textures and to state their forms by the cautious means of stippling and hatching which becomes often so minute, painstaking, and dexterous as to remind us of the technical marvels of the great French engravers. Cummings describes as follows two of the technical methods of miniature painting, i.e., hatch and stipple:? “In the first named the colour is laid on in lines crossing each other in various directions, leaving spaces equal to the width of the line between each, and finally producing an evenly-lined surface. The second is similarly commenced, ‘For an account of the technique of miniature painting, see George C. Williamson and Percy Buckman, The Art of the Miniature Painter, 1926. *See Dunlap’s History, etc., 1834 edition, II, p. 12. : g eS Oe ee ey sir i i RN iA A rag BES eat | JOHN WATSON BY HIMSELF Artist UNKNOWN Respecca CLAYPOOLE PRATT PLATE I Mrs. West sy Pratr—Portratt In OILs Mrs. THomas Hopxtnson py Pratt EuizaBetH RoTHMALER BY Tuetis—Porrrair in Ors Brensamin West spy Himseir Mrs. Jacos Morte sy Jeremian Tuetis PLATE II Tue APPEAL OF THE MINIATURE and when advanced to the state we have described, is finished by dots placed in the interstices of the lines until the whole has the appearance of having been stippled from the commencement.” Such elaborate stippling as that described may actually be ob- served with the aid of a magnifying glass in the backgrounds of miniatures by Cum- mings and others, though many miniaturists stippled merely by means of dots, whether round or squarish, made with the point of the brush.’ The results obtained by successfully employing processes so exacting and refined as these naturally invite the closest examination. To see properly an object so small and so finely contrived as a miniature portrait requires of us a distinct effort of the attention, an actual temporary arrest of the breathing. But, unless we are feeling jaded or distracted, we willingly undertake the effort, and the overcoming of this slight resistance is a process pleasant enough in itself, provided we find the game is worth the candle. The area is tiny, but for that very reason it must give us abundant return if we are to feel satisfied. The forms must posses clarity; the textures must be pure and perfect, i.e., the miniature must offer much value in little space. It must possess the quality called “preciousness.” Such preciousness, such elaborate and perfect manipulation within a small area of materials pleasing in themselves—the intrinsic loveliness of the glowing ivory surface seen through a fine texture of colour, delicate and unsullied by time—furnishes us, at its best, a species of delight peculiar to painting “‘in little.” It is a delight in its modest way not unlike the breathing of mountain air, a quality of sensation as- sociated in our minds with clarity and transparency which, until the developed ex- ploitation of the miniature on ivory, had not been supplied by paintings since the decay, early in the Sixteenth Century, of the great tradition of the Van Eycks. Closely connected with the pleasure which the collector takes in the preciousness of his miniatures is his delight in a second quality which painting “in little’”’ possesses. And this quality we may call the ‘“‘marvellousness” of the miniature, an attribute which is inherent in its very littleness. Enthusiasm for such marvellousness as this is, perhaps, not a purely esthetic emotion, but is, nevertheless, based upon a more or less 1The attempt is to convey here some understanding of the technique of the miniaturist during the period covered by the present volume. Many miniature painters of the present day intend their works to be seen at a distance of sev- eral feet as against the earlier six to eighteen inches, and modern methods often resemble those employed in painting with aquarelle on paper. 3° AMERICAN MINIATURES sound appreciation of craftsmanship. It depends upon sympathy and hence upon experience (whether direct or vicarious) with the technical difficulties involved in the creation of such a diminutive work of art, and perhaps for that reason we hear more about such enthusiasm in earlier times when people lived on more intimate terms than now with the processes of the craftsman. For the satisfaction of such an eminently human taste as this must have been carved such astonishing objects as the Flemish rosary beads of boxwood illustrating scenes from the Passion,’ which have their admirers to-day also, for most of us have whittled at wood. Yet the Crucifixion in this series with its twenty-odd figures struggling through their drama within the space of an inch and a half’s diameter would doubtless seem vulgar enough if magnified twenty times. In the same way, petty tinklings to which no sensible person would ordinarily give ear, provide us a childlike delight when they issue from a musical watch fob, and we are all familiar with the classic story of the Shield of Achilles, the marvels of which were sung by Homer, to the delight of all listeners, for the better part of half an hour. On the shield’s metallic surface, the god Hepheestus fashioned with cunning skill the heavens with their constellations, and the earth with its cities beleaguered and torn with strife, or rejoicing in peaceful festivities. And around about the cities he showed the fertile farm lands and vineyards with labourers at their work | amg youths and maidens shouting and dancing. Thus, surely man delights in the marvellousness of little things cunningly and in- — geniously wrought and, this being so, surely the miniature portrait at its best and most precious might well be expected to give pleasure to many—as indeed it does. 1Examples are to be found in the Morgan Wing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. q WasHINGTON—1777—ByY C. W. PEALE ANDREW SuMMERS BY C. W. PEALE Racuase, Brewer Peace aNp DaucuTeR ELEANOR BY C. W. PEALE RocuamBeau BY C. W. PEALE Mrs. Micuae, Taney sy C. W. Peate Wruiiiam BrncHam sy C. W. PEALE PLATE III or) II. THE ORIGIN OF MINIATURES M INIATURES, in the sense of small portraits complete in themselves, are in spirit very different from the book miniatures which flourished in the East as well as the West practically throughout the Middle Ages. The miniatures in books were intended to illuminate the text and to decorate the page, and their smallness was conditioned only by the size of the page itself. Here portraits occur only occasionally, and when they do they usually represent with marvellous skill and honesty the great personage him- self for whom the book was made. The intention in such cases was evidently not to commemorate the personage portrayed so much as to do him homage or to celebrate some event, whether secular or devotional, with which the courtly illuminator wished to connect him. The detached portrait miniature, with which this book has to do, is painted for a different purpose. It is designed simply as a memento, its purpose being essentially that of an intimate personal document, not to be kept by the subject of the likeness, but intended to serve the owner as an aid in visualizing the admired or beloved person portrayed. In its emotional appeal to the original owner it partakes thus a little both of the companion and the talisman. The Eighteenth Century practice of setting a lock of the sitter’s hair in the back of the frame served to reinforce the association, and in some cases a conventional mourning motif or a word of farewell cut from a letter written by the sitter was introduced to add pathos. During its heyday, the miniature was always small, for it was designed to be carried on the person or set into some such personal article as a snufibox or a memorandum case, or at the very least to be kept in one’s own desk, probably secreted in the smallest and most private of its drawers. That this form of art, celebrating the individual as it does, should have arisen with the Renaissance was no mere accident. It was but one minor expression of the fresh interest in human personality which everyone in those days of eager curiosity began to feel. And it is also surely not without significance that we, if we wish to go back of the Renaissance in search of the closest spiritual analogue to our miniature portraits, must 5 AMERICAN MINIATURES join the Renaissance scholar in rummaging among the artistic treasures of the Classical world. It is in the portrait gems once set into the finger rings of Greeks and Romans that we shall discover the identical species of human appeal: a delight in the faithful delineation of the human countenance on a scale small enough to wear on the person as a memento. At the Boston Museum of Fine Arts is a rare and beautiful gem portrait of this \sort dating as early as the Fifth Century s, c. In Hellenistic times, and especially during the Augustan age, portraits engraved on gems became more and more common. Augustus himself wore a portrait of his hero Alexander the Great. The followers of Epicurus wore his portrait on their signets, and cultured Romans wore beautiful heads lof Homer, Socrates, and Demosthenes. The decadent Commodus wore in his ring a portrait of his mistress Marcia as an Amazon, while Tom, Dick, and Harry, or their Roman equivalents, wore portraits of friends, relatives, or sweethearts.1 During the thousand years which follow the fall of Rome the private portrait on a tiny scale practically ceases to appear. The intellectual world is preoccupied with al- legories and abstractions, the individual is presumably lost in the hive. Subjects for the artist usually concerned episodes from the Christian legend, or, when occasionally some gay and dainty object was decorated with a secular theme, it illustrated nothing more personal than the occupations of the months or the homiletic tale of Virgil in his basket, or Campaspe and Aristotle, or the Siege of the Castle of Love. It is not until the resurrection of Classical ideas in Renaissance Italy that the small private portrait recurs. At first it is not in the medium of paint but in bronze that it ‘appears. When Pisanello, inspired probably by Roman models, began in the forties of the Fifteenth Century to make his unsurpassed portrait medals, it was before the invention of engraving, and medals were the only way of making speedily a number of replicas of a portrait which could be sent about as presents. Medals answered a human need and the vogue for them quickly spread. Some fifty years after the great time of Pisanello the city of Lyons celebrated the state entry of Anne of Brittany by presenting her with one hundred copies of a medal by native artists portraying herself and Charles VIII, while in Germany, especially 1See Gisela M. A. Richter, Catalogue of Engraved Gems, Metropolitan Museum, 1920, pp. XXII, 90. *See G. F. Hill, Medals of the Renaissance, Oxford, 1920. 6 ArcnipALp Roperrson BY HIMsELr Mrs. Wituram E. Huwines sy James PEALe RempraNpt PEALE BY JAMES PrAte Grorcr WasHineton By C. W. PEALE Hannay Summers By C. W. PEALE PLATE IV [THE ABOVE REPRODUCTIONS ARE LARGER THAN THE ORIGINALS AS 11:10] ae hig THoe ORIGIN OF MINIATURES during the second quarter of the Sixteenth Century, numerous small circular portraits of delightful precision and unflinching characterization were cast in bronze or carved in boxwood or lithographic stone. These reveal scarcely a trace of Italian influence. They are a peculiarly Germanic expression of the Renaissance spirit. In England no native medallist of note appeared, and it was in England, perhaps | not by a mere coincidence, that the art arose of making portrait medallions by painting | | them on vellum or on cardboard. The exact year when the first portrait miniature was | | thus “‘limned’ we do not know, but it would almost appear that it was the wave of ) Henry VIII’s royal sceptre which commanded its appearance. During the first gen- | eration of its existence the miniature was invariably the size of a small medal and , circular in form,” the figure being designed with medallion-like style and clarity against a background of clear ultramarine blue. All the English miniatures of that generation and well past the middle of the century used to be attributed to Hans Holbein, for the fact that he died as early as 1543 came to light only in comparatively recent years. At the other end of his activity as a miniaturist, it appears unlikely that he painted “‘in little” before his second so- | journ in England, commencing in 1532; and the authorities on his art now recognize a scant dozen little portraits as by him. One portrait of Henry VIII painted in 1535 or earlier, before he had his head “‘polled,”’ is close to Holbein’s style but scarcely up to the Holbein standard, and 1536 is the first year that we have evidence of Holbein’s being in Henry’s service. But the much-married king ¥ was a a great Le FiSah of the arts, and Holbein was not the only artist he imported. Among those on his payroll at this time were two talented | children of the Flemish illuminator and tapestry designer, Gerard Horenbout (also | spelled Hornebout, Hornebolt, etc.). One was his daughter Susanna, who had painted | | at the age of eighteen a miniature picture of Christ as Saviour which Albrecht Diirer in 1521 marvelled at and bought direct from the youthful artist. The other was his son 1At least as late as the middle of the Seventeenth Century, the verb to limn was used strictly to indicate painting in miniature. Pepys at this time speaks of paintings in little, but Horace Walpole, less than a century later, invariably uses the word miniature. Limn is derived from ilwmine, while minium, the red lead commonly used in early manuscript initials, gave its name to miniatures. *Holbein’s portrait of Thomas Wriothesley in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art is oval but gives clear evidence of having been cut down by some vandal. u AMERICAN MINIATURES Lucas. Both had been trained in the great Flemish tradition of manuscript illumina- tion. The services of such artist families as the Horenbouts and Benings' knew no national boundary lines, and it may well be that Lucas Horenbout, before he was | called to England, saw a certain book belonging to Francis I of France which would ‘furnish the prototype of the miniature portrait of the court of Henry VIII. This ‘manuscript book of Commentaries on the Gallic War was made in 1519 and contained among many things seven circular medallion-like portraits about one and one-half ‘inches in diameter with blue backgrounds. Drawings for these portraits of the seven Preux de Marignan who had championed Francis’s cause in battle have been identified through drawings at Chantilly as by “‘the presumed Jean Clouet.’”2 Whether or not Lucas Horenbout actually saw these miniatures of Jean Clouet we shall probably never know definitely, nor shall we know whether it was he to whom the simple but important idea first came of cutting such a portrait out of its book, or of being so revolutionary even as deliberately to paint a small portrait upon a small circle of parchment or cardboard having no connection with any book whatsoever. Lucas Horenbout was naturalized in England in 1534, and the royal accounts mention payments to him (of a salary higher than was ever paid to Holbein) until 1544, ! in which year he died. Not long after Lucas Horenbout came to England, Holbein appears to have become acquainted with him (if Van Mander’s statement made in 1604 is correct) and to have learned from him the technique of painting in water colours on vellum. “With Lucas,” writes Van Mander “he kept up mutual acquaintance and in- tercourse, and learned from him the art of miniature painting, which since then he pursued to such an extent that in a short time he as far excelled Luke in drawing, ar- rangement, understanding, and execution as the sun surpasses the moon in brightness.” Nicholas Hilliard, the great miniature painter of Queen Elizabeth’s time, writes about the year 1600 in his T’reatise Concerning the Art of Limning: “Yet had the King in wages for limning divers others, but Holbean’s manner I have ever imitated and howld it for the best.” Thus we find in Henry VIII’s England the art of the detached miniature portrait ‘Alexander Bening (also spelled Binnink, etc.) was one of the greatest illuminators, and is given credit for many marvellous works including most of the pages in the Grimani Breviary. His daughter Lievine was employed in England after 1545 by Henry VIII, Mary, and Elizabeth. *See L, Dimier, French Painting in the XVI Century, 1904, p. 31. 8 Tur Or1iGiIN oF MINIATURES well established. In France we have already noted the little circular portraits painted supposedly by Jean Clouet some years earlier than the English examples but not yet liberated from the setting of the book. In the reign of Henri II, however, we find the portrait miniature flourishing in the delicate art of the school of Jean’s son Francois Clouet. Concerning the miniature in Italy, we have a statement made by Vasari in the middle of the Sixteenth Century which seems to indicate that Giulio Clovio had begun to paint miniatures in the newer sense of the word in addition to the famous portraits which he painted in books. “I know,” he writes, “some private persons who have little cases containing beautiful portraits by his hand, of sovereigns, of their friends, or of ladies whom they have loved.” III. THE USE OF IVORY [i development of the art of the miniature, once it was established, is not for us to trace here. There is, however, one pivotal event in miniature history which may be touched upon appropriately, and that is the introduction of ivory as the material upon which to paint. ! 44 As we have remarked, miniatures by Holbein, and by his contemporaries who fol- lowed the same practice, are painted either directly upon pieces of cardboard cut out of playing cards or on fine vellum pasted over such cardboard. The background is painted with ultramarine blue made from lapis lazuli and diluted with white. The portrait it- self is painted as a rule in gouache, i.e., opaque or body colour, with transparent flesh, though Professor Ganz! describes Holbein’s miniature of Anne of Cleves painted in 1539 as being in “finest aquarelle technique” (i. e., transparent) on paper in an ivory box with a rose carved on the top. For two full centuries following the time of Holbein the characteristic technique of painting miniatures remained virtually unchanged. Parchment, sometimes paper, is the material and gouache is the medium, with aquarelle for the flesh. Miniatures painted in oil on copper, silver, slate, or wood are not uncommon, especially in the Seventeenth Century, but as a general thing they seem heavy and dark when com- pared with miniatures in water colour, and are generally felt to be out of the happy spirit of miniature painting. In the early Eighteenth Century, miniatures painted in enamel became the rage, and it was then also, or a little before, that painting on ivory began to be tried. Ber- nard Lens, who lived until 1755, often painted on ivory, using transparent flesh tints, but his draperies and backgrounds were painted opaque, in the old manner which, among French miniaturists, was continued until the end of the Eighteenth Century. The first painter to understand fully and to exploit the qualities of ivory for miniatures was, according to most experts, the Englishman, Richard Cosway. Early in ‘Klassiker der Kunst, Holbein, 1911. 10 Mrs. Jonn Witson By JAMES PEALE Paut Breck By JAMES PEALE ANNA CLAYPOOLB PEALE BY JAMES PBALE Maria C. Peate AND DAUGHTER BY JAMES PEALE Maria C. PEALE BY JAMES PEALE PLATE V Dr. Wittram E. Huuias spy James PEALE Mrs. Morpecat SHEFTALL BY JAMES PEALE Mrs. Jostan Pinckney sy Jamps PEALE JAMES PEALE BY HIMSELF A. A. P. B. pe Pont py James PEALE PLATE VI WA GLVId ADCIUANAG AC TIVSHAWOG WVITTIAA ‘SUP ADNGIUANAG AM NGGSAV) AAHAOLSIMH,) “SUL NOLIOT LYAMOY AI NOLTAY NOLSONIAY]T LaTaUvyy ADGIUaNAG AG GUVAHAAHS SHIUVHD NIVidvd) ADGIUANAG Ad AHLOWLY, NNY HLAAVZr1y IWA GALVId NOVIN INAGOY AM LIVELYOT AONVYT SOLTOY AM []]T AAVIGSSNAY NVA NAHATLS ‘SUT Tus Use or Ivory his career he was employed by jewellers to paint fancy miniatures for snuffboxes. As early as 1761 he was exhibiting miniatures at the Free Society, and he soon became the most popular miniaturist in England. Perhaps it was his training in painting miniatures to be used as adjuncts to gold and jewelled boxes that called his attention to a certain airy translucency and silveriness which could be obtained by letting the smooth surface of the ivory glow through the thinnest possible covering of transparent colour. The soft colour of the unbleached and undisguised ivory could serve as high lights on the flesh and was allowed to give a lightness to clouds behind or a sheen to satin draperies. The lesson of using ivory and of permitting it to speak for itself was quickly learned by the other miniaturists of England, and since it is not until about this time that the history of miniature painting begins in America, it is with miniatures on ivory almost invariably that we shall have to deal in our study of this intimate art “in little” as found in the newer country. BS ea Caps ‘U1 IV. THE EARLIEST AMERICAN WORKS COLONISTS PORTRAYED IN ENGLAND—JOHN WATSON—THEUS American MintatureEs” as the title of such a book as this should require no apologies or explanation. It includes, as a matter of course, miniatures painted in America by anyone, native or foreign born, whose work was worth remembering and who remained on the scene long enough to contribute something to the esthetic cul- ture of America. As Walpole pointed out, to write a history of English painting without dwelling on the art of Holbein and Zucchero, VanDyck, Cornelis Janssens, Lely, and Kneller would be utterly meaningless. Less emphatically, a history of American miniature painting without consideration of the talented European artists who worked here, would give only a partial picture of the subject, although it can be stated, without the danger of falling into chauvinism, that most good American miniatures were painted by native-born Americans. In the history of oil painting in America we find the work of foreign artists con- fined principally to two periods: first, the early time before the middleof the Eighteenth Century when the Colonies were still too raw to have produced artists of their own; and, second, the period of the 1790’s and a little later, when the new Republic was ex- hibiting tempting signs of wealth and stability, just at a time when many an artist was glad enough to get out of France alive, and England was profoundly upset by the Napoleonic adventure. In the field of the miniature we know less of such foreign invasion during the earlier period. The history of painting in oils begins in America with the middle of the Seventeenth Century, but few, if any, works in miniature of this early date are known, perhaps because there were none painted, perhaps because they have been lost or de- stroyed, or perhaps merely because, being small, miniatures are able to hide themselves out of sight in museum cases. The comparatively moderate money value of miniatures, moreover, makes them more apt than larger portraits to remain in the private families where they properly belong. Such Seventeenth Century portraits “in little” as we know 12 Tue EarRvuiest AMERICAN WORKS showing American personages were painted by Englishmen in England, if one may judge anything of the style of miniatures from illustrations in photogravure.! Thus, the miniature of John Winthrop, from which the portraits of him in oils derive, appears to be in the style of Nicholas Hilliard, while that of Isaac Mazyck must have been painted before he left England in 1668, its urbane style apparently resembling that of Laurence Crosse. The miniature of George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, which is in the Morgan Collection, is signed by Peter Oliver. The earliest miniature portraits actually painted in America may well have been the little drawings by John Watson. Watson was a Scotsman, who came to East Jersey in 1715 and settled in the then very promising town of Perth Amboy. Here, according to Dunlap, he remained for the rest of his many days and continued a bachelor, amass- ing considerable wealth by his art and by the shrewd handling of his moneys. The only works by him of which we are sure are little portraits on vellum or paper made either with a brush dipped in India ink (see Plate I) or else with “plumbago,” i. e., with a graphite pencil, after the manner of Forster and Johann Faber in England. The por- trait of Sir William Keith, the provincial governor of Pennsylvania, now owned by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, is in India ink, while his Lady’s is nicely drawn in pencil.” . A delightful early miniature, perhaps the earliest American example known which is on ivory, is the portrait of Mrs. Jacob Motte of Charleston, S. C. Originally set as a bracelet (Plate II), it is a quaint little work, neatly executed, gay in colour and in the rendition of the blue silk dress, and marvellous in the small-scale rendition of lace. The supposed sitter, Elizabeth Martin, married Jacob Motte in 1725, and the costume shown in the miniature indicates an indefinite date between 1740 and 1760. As to the age of the sitter at the time the miniature was painted, it would be risky to dogmatize. Possibly the family tradition has slipped a generation, as it so often does, and we have here a youthful portrait of the wife of Jacob Motte, Jr. This gentleman, who was born in 1729, had his portrait painted in 1750 by Jeremiah Theiis, and the style of Mrs. Motte’s miniature immediately suggests that it also was painted by Theiis. 1See C. K. Bolton, Portraits of the Founders, 3 vols., Boston, 1919 and 1926. 2A confused inscription behind the frame of Lady Keith’s portrait seems to indicate that it is merely a copy made in 1856. 13 AMERICAN MINIATURES Most of our information about this artist was brought out in an article by the Reverend Robert Wilson some years ago.! We do not know in what year Theiis emi- grated from Switzerland to South Carolina, but in 1740 he advertised himself as having removed his establishment into Market Square near Mr. John Laurens, the saddler, where he was prepared to paint portraits, landscapes of all sizes, and crests or coats of arms for coaches and chaises. Until 1773, the year before his death, he had practically a monopoly of the portrait painting of Charleston. “It is not known,” writes Mr. Wilson, “whether Thetis ever painted miniatures, and one of his ‘landskips,’ still existing, does not evince any special ability, but his portraits came to be in great vogue.” An entirely characteristic portrait in oils by him is that dated 1757, of Elizabeth Rothmaler, afterward Mrs. Paul Trapier (Plate II). Its colour is, perhaps, its greatest charm, but there is much that is attractive too in the alert figure with its sharply modelled head. The length from eyes to chin, which we may observe also in his miniature, is exaggerated, the mouth is a full Cupid’s bow, and the nose gives a curious impression of cartilages tightly confined by the skin. The recipe for painting the silken dress is an excellent one. In both portraits, the little and the big, we note again the minute attention to lace, the scarf thrown over the farther shoulder, the puckers in the silk beneath the arm, and the use of the forked fold in the sleeve. More than seventy oil portraits by Jeremiah Thetis have already been discovered in Charleston, and doubtless a number of his miniatures would turn up if a search were to be made. See Year Book, City of Charleston, S. C., 1899, pp. 137-147. 14 V. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY IN PHILADELPHIA AND FARTHER SOUTH HESSELIUS—PRATT—WEST—C.W.PEALE—JAMES PEALE— FULTON—BENBRIDGE Tue middle of the Eighteenth Century found Philadelphia the metropolis of the American Colonies and a centre of culture which only Boston could rival. We might naturally expect to find members of the leading families in such a community desirous of having their likenesses taken in miniature to serve as mementoes or keepsakes, and a number of miniatures are indeed known to us which were painted in or about Phila- delphia at this time. | Several of these delightful heirlooms, fresh and dainty in colour, very small in scale, and executed with a minute stipple, appear to be by a single hand. A delightful example of such work is to be seen in the portrait of Mrs. Hopkinson, the wife of Judge Thomas Hopkinson! and mother of Francis Hopkinson (Plate II). In her enjoyable, lavender-scented Heirlooms in Miniatures, Anne Hollingsworth Wharton discusses interestingly and at some length the possible authorship of such early Philadelphia miniatures as this of Mrs. Hopkinson and one of Mary McCall Plumsted, also the somewhat earlier portrait of Mrs. Henry Pratt, born Rebecca Claypoole (Plate I). The possible attributions offered to us for these early works are, in fact, not a few if we consider the different painters then working in and about Philadelphia; and while it is somewhat hazardous to draw parallels between miniature portraits and larger works in oil, one is tempted to speculate upon any light which such a comparison might throw upon the authorship of these sprightly early works. First, then, there were John Wollaston and John Hesselius, both of whom are known to have worked along the Eastern Shore of Maryland, Hesselius being active, at the least, from 1750 to 1770, while Wollaston was painting in Maryland and in Philadelphia, Richmond, and Char- leston from about 1755 to 1767. The “almond-eyed” mannerism of these two artists makes entirely possible the painting by one or the other of them of Mary Plumsted’s 1The companion miniature of Judge Hopkinson is in less perfect condition. 15 AMERICAN MINIATURES miniature, but it quite precludes either from having painted the little portrait of Mrs, Thomas Hopkinson or that of Rebecca Pratt. As to who may have been the author of this lovely little miniature of Rebecca Pratt we have as yet no clue whatever. It appears to have been painted between 1750 and 1760 at the latest (Mrs. Pratt was born in 1711), and is executed in the opaque French manner. There still remains for us, then, the agreeable task of speculating upon who could have been the painter of the delicate and appealing little portrait of Mrs. Thomas Hopkinson. Their “‘almond-eyed” mannerism having eliminated Hesselius and Wollas- ton as possibilities, there remain to us four Philadelphia artists whose claims should be considered. First, we may mention James Claypoole, if only promptly to discard the thought of him, for the moment at least, because we do not definitely know any paintings by him, and are therefore in complete darkness as to what his style may have been like. Second, there is Benjamin West to consider. But West left America forever at the age of not quite twenty-two, and our miniature of Mrs. Hopkinson betrays nothing of the pronouncedly brown flesh-colour and primitive modelling which we find in his miniature self-portrait painted at the age of eighteen (Plate IL), and, more- over, nothing of the gaucherie which we find in his characteristic early portraits of Mr. and Mrs. William Henry, now owned by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. A third painter who claims our consideration is Charles Willson Peale, whose home was in Maryland but who travelled about extensively painting portraits in oil and also in miniature. But in Peale’s case again we are unable to judge with immediate satisfaction whether or not we have found the painter of the miniature in question. For, although we know plenty of Peale’s work after he returned in 1769 from his studies in London, we have few clues to his style two years earlier when he had not yet had the advantage of devoted study under competent instructors. Our fourth and final claimant remains as a convenient climax. He is Matthew Pratt the pupil of James Claypoole, best known to us for his picture at the Metropolitan Museum of Art entitled the American School. This qua.nt picture is a group portrait of several young artists at work in West’s London studio. Other well-known works by Pratt are his greenish and somehow classic portraits of Benjamin West and his wife Elizabeth, both now owned by the Pennsy]l- vania Academy. If we were to examine in detail and side by side our little miniature of Mrs. Hopkinson and this portrait by Pratt of Elizabeth West (Plate II), we should 16 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY, PHILADELPHIA AND SOUTH find illustrated in both the pleasing characteristic practice of draping a scarf over the head and across the shoulder. In both, also, we should find the identical small crescent mouth and the same simple clarity in the drawing of eyes coupled with a somewhat puffy fulness of the lower lid, distinctive traits which can be found repeated yet again in the less familiar portrait of Elizabeth Colden de Lancey painted by Matthew Pratt and illustrated in the catalogue of the 1917 Exhibition of Early American Paintings at the Brooklyn Museum. ~— We owe what information we have concerning Pratt largely to the invaluable though not infallible Dunlap. Matthew Pratt was born in Philadelphia in 1734, the son of the goldsmith Henry Pratt, who was a member of Dr. Franklin’s famous Junto. At the age of fifteen he was bound out as an apprentice to his uncle James Claypoole, from whom he learned “‘all the different branches of the painting business,”’ which surely included portrait and sign painting and which we may well suppose included painting in miniature also. Many have testified that the signs which he painted from time to time during his career were extraordinarily good ones. Neagle assures us, “‘ They were the best signs I ever saw,” especially the one with a gamecock which designated a beer shop on Spruce Street, one with Neptune, and one which showed the Constitu- tional Convention, including many diminutive portraits said to have been good like- nesses of the delegates. Pratt was twenty-five years old before he settled down to the profession of por- trait painting. In 1764, aged thirty, he went to England, where he divided four years between the London studio of his friend Benjamin West and Bristol, where he followed his profession with fair success. Returning at last to Philadelphia, he reéstablished himself as a portrait and sign painter. He visited New York at times, notably in 1772, when he executed the full-length portrait of Cadwallader Colden for the Chamber of Commerce. He also painted the portrait of Elizabeth Colden de Lancey, already men- tioned, and another of Cadwallader Colden with his grandson Warren de Lancey at his knee. At the National Museum, Washington, is a portrait in oils of Mrs. Hopkinson, resting Leonardesque hands in her lap, which is apparently by Pratt and seems to bear some relationship to our miniature of the same lady. But though Matthew Pratt con- tinued to live in Philadelphia until the age of seventy, we know surprisingly few of his works. 17 AMERICAN MINIATURES With Charles Willson Peale it was quite another matter. Portraiture was his field so long as he continued painting, and the number of his works, as well as the variety of his style during his most enthusiastic years, is remarkable. Born in 1741, Peale was three years younger than Benjamin West. His father, who died when Charles was a boy, had conducted a school where the youngster probably received his first lessons in the art by which he later became famous. A printed announcement of the school told the good parents of Chestertown and the surrounding Maryland countryside that “Young Gentlemen may be instructed in Fencing and Drawing by very good Masters.” But young Peale’s school days had to be terminated early, and he was ap- prenticed to a saddler. Upon his release at the age of twenty, his predilection for draw- ing came again to the surface, and, though he had now set up as a saddler and married him a wife, he began painting portraits, first of himself and then of his young wife and his brothers and sisters. On the strength of these no doubt crude attempts, he soon obtained a commission for two portraits at five pounds each. He sought instruction from a painter in Philadelphia, named Steel, but Mr. Steel was far too eccentric to be of use. Later John Hesselius allowed the young enthusiast to watch him execute two portraits and then gave him a portrait with the left half painted and told him to paint the right. Peale paid for this valuable lesson with a saddle of his own making. In 1765, when Peale was twenty-four, his services, in some mysterious way, were required in far-off Newburyport, where he painted five portraits. On his way back, he stopped in Boston and was awed by the old portraits and copies in the Smibert shop. Copley received him civilly and lent him for study a painting he had made by candle- light—doubtless the delightful portrait of young Henry Pelham, recently lent to the Boston Museum. It was at this time, according to his journals, that Peale painted his first miniature, a portrait of himself. Before returning to Annapolis, Peale painted several portraits in Virginia under the patronage of a wealthy planter, but what the quality of his work may have been we do not really know. Some of his father’s influential friends sent him to London to pur- sue his studies in West’s studio, and within a year the Free Society of Artists had ac- cepted from him for exhibition two three-quarter-size portraits and three miniatures. It appears to have been chiefly by painting miniatures that he supported himself in 18 \W. S. Mitter AtrrRipuTeD TO COPLEY JoserH BARRELL BY COPLEY Coptey By HIMse.r Epwarp Savacn By HIMseLr Derporan ScoutuaAYy MELyILLE BY COPLEY SamurL Cary BY COPLEY Mrs. SamuEL Cary BY CopLey PLATE Ix X HLVId WYATT AUNTF] AM SNAADLG “AQ WVITITAL AMIWAYNAG AG NVI VW TIOGNOUT, XM HLING NOLHDAO'T WVITITAY AGTYAANAG Ad SHONOUNNG AUV INL WIVAY "M ‘OD A@ (¢) ANQUUD IGVNVHIVN | =| =) g a Pp a) is bo fea} 3) iS) Z