IE* ICtbrtfi 
 
 SEYMOUR DURST 
 
 'When you leave, please leave this book 
 
 Because it has been said 
 "Ever'thincj comes t' him who waits 
 
 Except a loaned book.'' 
 
 Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library 
 
THE 
 HISTORY OF 
 
 The Burr Portraits 
 
 Their Origin, Their Dispersal And Their Reassemblage 
 
 By 
 
 JOHN E. STILLWELL, M.D. 
 •H-a ■=»*■ 
 
 For Private Distribution 
 Edition Limited to One Hundred and Twenty-Five Copies 
 
 1928 
 
e 
 
 SS 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2014 
 
 https://archive.org/details/historyofburrporOOstil 
 
DEDICATED 
 TO 
 
 SAMUEL H. WANDELL AND MEADE MINNIGERODE 
 THE TWO CAPABLE AND TRUTHFUL HISTORIANS 
 
 OF 
 
 COL. AARON BURR 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Introductory 
 
 Pen Portraits of Colonel Burr 1 
 
 The Bowrowsons and The Burr Portraits .......... 3 
 
 The Gilrert Stuart Portrait of Colonel Burr and Its Copy by Vanderlyn .... 8 
 
 The Trumbull Portrait of Colonel Burr 11 
 
 The Two Sharples' Portraits of Colonel Burr ......... 12 
 
 The 1796 St. Memin Portrait of Colonel Burr 18 
 
 The 1805 St. Memin Portrait of Colonel Burr ......... 21 
 
 The 1802 Vanderlyn Portrait of Colonel Burr 22 
 
 The Gridley Engraving of Colonel Burr 24 
 
 The 1802-4 Vanderlyn Portrait of Colonel Burr 25 
 
 The 1809 Vanderlyn Portrait of Colonel Burr ......... 27 
 
 The Inman Portrait of Colonel Burr 29 
 
 The Vandyck Portrait of Colonel Burr ........... 30 
 
 Casts and Busts 34 
 
 Burr's Watches 41 
 
 The Gilbert Stuart Portrait of Theodosia Burr 44 
 
 The 1796 Vanderlyn Portrait of Theodosia Burr 47 
 
 Vanderlyn's Kingston Portrait of Theodosia Burr ........ 48 
 
 The 1796 St. Memin Portrait of Theodosia Burr 49 
 
 The 1802 Vanderlyn Portrait of Theodosia Burr Alston ....... 51 
 
 The 1811 Vanderlyn Portrait of Theodosia Burr Alston ....... 56 
 
 The Biays Crayon Portrait of Theodosia Burr 58 
 
 The Nag's Head Portrait of Theodosia Burr Alston ........ 59 
 
 Vanderlyn's Unfinished Portrait of Theodosia Burr Alston ...... 63 
 
 Colonel Burr's Natural Children and The Burr Divorce 64 
 
 The Jumel Portraits 70 
 
 Obituary of Madam Jumel 74 
 
 The Blennerhassett Miniatures ............ 80 
 
 The Portrait of Mary Woolstonecraft 84 
 
 Vanderlyn's Self Portrait and His Artistry ......... 85 
 
 Personal Interviews .............. 91 
 
 Miscellaneous Notes 102 
 
Introductory 
 
 There are two reasons for compiling these notes — first, and mainly to save what I alone 
 know; second, to correct that which others claim to know. To Pidgin, the enthusiastic, if 
 somewhat sketchy historian of Colonel Burr and his daughter, I wrote, October 10th, 1901, 
 the following letter, which he reproduced in his history of Theodosia, page 432 : 
 
 "As I lay aside your book, 'Blennerhassett,'' I determine to thank you for your defence 
 of Aaron Burr, and to express the hope that I may have the pleasure of meeting you before 
 long. Colonel Burr's mother-in-law was Ann Stillwell, she who successively married Mr. 
 Bartow and Mr. De Visme, and who resided with her daughter, Mrs. Prevost, at the time 
 of her marriage to Mr. Burr. In my family, where his life was well known, he had his detrac- 
 tors, yet some champions. Among the latter I class myself. The pursuit of information re- 
 lating to him and his daughter brought me in contact with those who had known him per- 
 sonally, or those who were otherwise exceptionally informed. His last law partner was Colonel 
 William Dusenbury Craft, who was in his extreme age under my professional care. His 
 admiration for Burr and his knowledge of him were equally great. The authoress, Mrs. Ann S. 
 Stephens, who befriended Mrs. Webb, his last friend, and who succeeded to Burr's effects 
 through Mrs. Webb; the Bowrowson family, who served Burr in the capacity of coachman 
 and cook, and who advanced him money when indicted by the Grand Jury for the killing 
 of Hamilton, and who subsequently kept his effects ; Mrs. Minthorne Tompkins, who Burr, 
 in his will, made guardian of one of the two daughters he names; the family of his illegitimate 
 son, Aaron Columbus Burr; members of the Edwards family; all these, and others, I have met 
 and gleaned from. The result has been much information, and the original portraits of Burr 
 and his daughter, Theodosia, to the number of five, and photographs of others, to the number 
 of eight, as well as one of Mr. and Mrs. Blennerhassett. I can conceive it would interest you 
 to see them, and surely it would please me to show them to one who has so kindly spoken 
 for the originals." 
 
 Twenty-seven years have elapsed since then, and I have added much to my knowledge 
 of the Burr portraits. In attempting to put it into readable shape, I have tried to confine my- 
 self solely to the art aspect of the subject, and to avoid touching upon the personal history 
 of this much misunderstood American, and his admirable daughter. This now falls to the lot 
 of that profound student of Burr's career, Samuel H. Wandell, Esquire, of New York City, 
 whose life work, in collaboration with Mr. Meade Minnigerode, has been to compile the 
 story of The True Burr, which, as told by their critical and erudite pens, reveals to us a man 
 slandered, betrayed and martyred, one whose defence, even by his friends, has hitherto been 
 inadequate if not lukewarm. 
 
 The vicissitudes of art make a story as old as art itself. The vicissitudes of Burr's art 
 is a strange, pathetic tale of happiness and sorrow, success and misfortune, during which his 
 paintings were accumulated and dispersed, to be again reassembled. Valuable now, as pos- 
 sessing historical and art worth, they were once, because of Burr's unpopularity and the 
 recent date of their production, considered worthless. Few, if any, cared for their whereabouts 
 and this indifference abided for years. I have never been able to determine the number of 
 portraits that were painted of Burr and his daughter, but they were many. They apparently 
 
were both willing sitters, and the supply of limners as well as their assiduity was great. 
 Perhaps portrait painting was then one of the indulgences and pastimes of the rich. The 
 insufficient description of the original paintings, the frequency of copies ordered, but perhaps 
 not executed, and their oft changing ownership, made, for a while at least, the location of 
 them difficult and their identification nearly impossible. When the list was apparently com- 
 plete, new ones appeared and the end was again afar. 
 
 The Burr paintings group themselves mainly into two collections — one acquired before 
 Burr's flight, and the other after. I know of seventeen in the first group, including the Indian 
 Red Jacket and the diplomat Talleyrand; Adet and Gallatin by the youthful Vanerlyn; his 
 father, The Rev. Aaron Burr, and his mother by Smybert; portraits of himself by Stuart, 
 Trumbull, Sharpies, St. Memin and Vanderlyn; portraits of his daughter Theodosia by 
 Stuart, Vanderlyn and St. Memin, and portraits of Natalie De Lage Sumter, one a full face 
 painting and another, the engraving by St. Memin. No doubt there were others, all of which 
 adorned his home at Richmond Hill, where seemingly every foreigner of distinction, including 
 future royalty, who visited our shores, was feted and addressed in his own tongue. 
 
 In the second group I know of twelve, including Mary Woolstonecraft by Opie, the 
 Duke of Weimar, Dr. Gahn, of Sweden, Vanderlyn painted by himself, Madame Jumel by 
 Inman, portraits of the De Lisles, progenitors of his natural son Aaron Columbus Burr, and 
 portraits of himself by Vanderlyn, St. Memin, Inman and Vandyck. 
 
 We may even create another group, one, which includes two portraits of Theodosia, 
 belonging to the Alstons, the unfinished portrait of Theodosia, portraits of the Blenner- 
 hassetts, an additional likeness of Madame Jumel, and a marble bust, a bronze statue and 
 the death mask of Colonel Burr. 
 
 There is a regrettable but unavoidable repetition in some parts of this compilation, for 
 the history of a painting and an interview, occasionally repeat parts of each other, but both 
 are essential, the interview because it is fuller and more intime. 
 
 To Messrs. Harrison A. McNear, Samuel H. Wandell, Meade Minnigerode, Walter F. 
 McCaleb, William H. Shelton, John C. Tomlinson, Dr. Laporte and others, I am grateful 
 for aid, and appreciatively acknowledge my obligations. 
 
Pen Portraits 
 
 Of 
 
 Aaron Burr 
 
 HAVE at length been gratified with a sight of the late Vice-President, Aaron 
 Burr; he arrived at this place on the 28th inst. from New Orleans. A few days 
 after, I had the honor of spending an evening in his company. His stature is 
 about five feet six inches; he is a spare, meager form, but of an elegant sym- 
 metry; his complexion is fair and transparent; his dress was fashionable and 
 rich, but not flashy. He is a man of an erect and dignified deportment; his presence is com- 
 manding; his aspect mild, firm, luminous and impressive. His physiognomy is of the French 
 configuration. His forehead is prominent, broad, retreating, indicative of great expansion of 
 mind, immense range of thought, and amazing exuberance of fancy, but too smooth and regu- 
 lar for great altitude of conception, and those original, eccentric and daring aberrations of 
 superior genius. The eyebrows are thin, nearly horizontal, and too far from the eye; his nose 
 is nearly rectilinear, too slender between the eyes, rather inclined to the right side; gently 
 elevated, which betrays a degree of haughtiness; too obtuse at the end for great acuteness of 
 penetration, brilliancy of wit, or poignancy of satire, and too small to sustain his ample and 
 capacious forehead ; his eyes are of ordinary size, of a dark hazel, and from the shade of his pro- 
 jecting eye-bones and brows, appear black; they glow with all the ardor of venereal fire, and 
 scintillate with the most tremulous sensibility — they roll with the celerity and phrenzy of 
 poetic fervor, and beam with the most vivid and piercing rays of genius. His mouth is large; 
 his voice is manly, clear and melodious; his lips are thin, extremely flexible, and when silent 
 gently closed, but opening with facility to distill the honey which trickles from his tongue. His 
 chin is rather retreating and voluptuous. To analyze his face with physiognomical scrutiny, 
 you may discover many unimportant traits, but upon the first blush, or a superficial view, 
 they are obscured like the spots in the sun, by a radiance that dazzles and fascinates the sight. 
 
 In company, Burr is rather taciturn. When he speaks, it is with such animation, with 
 such apparent frankness and negligence as to induce a person to believe he is a man of guiless 
 and ingenuous heart, but in my opinion there is no human creature more reserved, mysteri- 
 ous, and inscrutable. 
 
 I have heard a great deal of Chesterfield and the graces. Surely Burr is the epitome — the 
 essence of them all; for never were their charms displayed with such potency and irresistible 
 attraction. He seems passionately fond of female society, and there is no being better calcu- 
 lated to succeed and shine in that sphere; to the ladies he is all attention — all devotion; in 
 conversation he gazes on them with complacency and rapture, and when he addresses them, 
 it is with that smiling affability, those captivating gestures, that je ne sais quoi, those dissol- 
 ving looks, that soft, sweet, and insinuating eloquence, which takes the soul captive before it 
 
 < 1 > 
 
can prepare for defence. In short, he is the most perfect model of an accomplished gentleman 
 that could be framed, even by the wanton imagination of poetry or fiction. The above de- 
 scription is taken from a letter written at Frankfort, August 30, 1805, printed in The Port 
 
 Folio, May 16, 1807. Petersfield. Magazine of American History, December, 1885. 
 
 "Shortly after I came to the city of New York Aaron Burr was pointed out to me as he 
 was slowly winding his way up Broadway between Chamber street and the old theatre on the 
 City Hall side. I frequently afterwards met him in this and other streets. He was always an 
 object of interest, inasmuch as he had become a historical character, somewhat notoriously 
 so. I will attempt to describe his appearance, or rather how he appeared to me. He was small, 
 thin, and attenuated in form, perhaps a little over five feet in height, weight not much over 
 one hundred pounds. He walked with a slow, measured and feeble step, stooping consider- 
 ably, occasionally with both hands behind his back, small, wrinkled face, keen, deep-set, dark 
 eye, his hat set deep on his head, the back part sunk down to the collar of the coat and the 
 back brim somewhat turned upwards, dressed in threadbare black cloth, having the appear- 
 ance of what is known as shabby genteel. His countenance wore a melancholy aspect as well as 
 his whole appearance betokened one dejected, forsaken, forgotten or cast aside and conscious 
 of his position. He was invariably alone when I saw him, except on a single occasion, that was 
 on the sidewalk in Broadway fronting what is now the Astor House, standing talking very 
 familiarly with a young woman whom he held by one hand. His countenance on that occasion 
 was cheerful, lighted up and bland, altogether different from what it appeared to me when I 
 saw him alone and in conversation with himself. In looking at this fragment of humanity it 
 appeared mysterious to me how he could have become famous in history, social as well as 
 political, or become noted for either good or bad actions of any sort, but again when it is taken 
 into consideration that it is not matter but mind that gives the stamp and produces the won- 
 derful results." Western Memorabilia. Gowans Catabgue of Rare Books, No. 24, New York, 
 1886. 
 
 i 2 } 
 
The Bowrowsons 
 
 And The 
 Burr Portraits 
 
 T EARLY becomes necessary to allude to a family of the name of Bowrowson, 
 one of minor importance in Aaron Burr's life, but conspicuous in the history of 
 the Burr portraits. When residing at Richmond Hill, in the zenith of his fame, 
 Burr employed as his kitchen chef, a German by the name of Anthony Bow- 
 rowson. The man was a culinary genius and Burr's dinners became celebrated. 
 His wife, Mrs. Bowrowson, was a plain, practical woman who assisted about the house. They 
 were a thrifty pair and when Burr was about to flee to Europe and was sorely pressed for 
 ready money, he borrowed it from them and they secured themselves by holding his personal 
 and household effects. To cancel their claim Burr made over to them certain lots of land in the 
 City, but there still remained an unpaid balance for which it was said they took a judgment. 
 It is certain that Burr was unable to completely repay them their loan, for despite his oft re- 
 peated requests, they held his goods, among them a portrait of Theodosia, his daughter. When 
 old Bowrowson developed alcoholic or senile dementia, his neighbors whispered that it was 
 God's judgment upon him for his cruelty. While an ornament to Burr's home, these goods 
 greatly overloaded the smaller house into which the Bowrowsons moved, on the west side of 
 Sullivan Street, between Broome and Spring, where they kept a smokehouse and where most 
 of the tilings, including terrestrial globes, books, china, paintings, etc., went to the garret. 
 The paintings alone amounted to about twenty in number, and included not only his family 
 portraits, but those of distinguished friends. Either before or after his service with Burr, An- 
 thony Bowrowson kept a tavern. It lay in the valley south of Richmond Hill, and carried his 
 surname — Bowrowson's Tavern. Burr was enjoined by his daughter, when about to set up 
 housekeeping in the South, to secure her a cook, concerning which he wrote: "You are equally 
 lucky with a cook. I have had him on trial a fortnight and he is the best I ever had in the 
 house for cakes, pastry and jimcracks, far superior to Anthony." 
 
 The uninteresting Bowrowsons are now of necessity followed, as among them, in the 
 second and fifth generations, Burr's effects come to fight. 
 
 Bowrowson's family consisted of six or more children: Anthony, Christian, Nicholas, and 
 still another son with a lame leg, and two daughters, one of whom, Theodosia, married Mr. 
 Shelburg, an artist, and a man of good reputation and character. He, Shelburg, for a time at 
 least, resided at 373 Broadway, in New York City, and some of his work is still existent in the 
 shape of mediocre landscapes owned by David E. Hill, of Keyport, N. J. To this daughter, 
 Theodosia Shelburg, upon the death of her parents, apparently passed most, if not all, of 
 Burr's effects, and these she took with her upon her migration to New Jersey; and with her 
 
 i 3 } 
 
they remained until rescued, in a fast perishing state, by Judge Odgen Edwards. Theodosia 
 Shelburg was the mother of several children: 
 
 (1) Joseph A. Shelburg, who died along in years, at Hazlet, New Jersey, unmarried. 
 
 (2) Harriet A. Shelburg, who became the wife of David E. Hill, of Hazlet, New Jersey, a 
 widower with children; she had no issue; I called upon her at the hotel, run by her husband, 
 opposite the Hazlet Station, in the Summer of 1882. 
 
 (3) Eliza Shelburg, who died a spinster. 
 
 (4) Louisa Shelburg, who married, first, Mr. Kennedy, perhaps an artist, and second, Mr. 
 Pool. By her first husband, alone, did she have issue. Her children were: 
 
 (a) William Kennedy, whose widow, in 1923, was living between Delaware Water Gap 
 and Bushkill Falls, where she ran a boarding house, and had in her possession the knife box 
 that Burr used during the Revolution. 
 
 (b) Edward Joseph Kennedy. 
 
 (c) Emma Kennedy, who married Edward Shelden. 
 
 (d) Cornelia Kennedy, who married Julius Van Meerbeek (or Meerbeck). This name Van 
 Meerbeek should be emphasized, for it was from Cornelia Kennedy Meerbeek's son that I 
 obtained the 1802, portrait of Colonel Burr, still in my possession, which establishes the fact 
 that Theodosia Bowrowson Shelburg either retained, or had distributed, certain of the Burr 
 portraits in her family, and Judge Ogden Edwards did not secure them all in his swoop. 
 
 The recovery of some of the Burr portraits is entertainly told in the Proceedings of the 
 New Jersey Historical Society, for 1865-66, Vol. X, page 170. Substitute the name Bowrowson 
 for Keaser, and cut out the statement of extreme poverty, and the story will conform to facts. 
 Before proceeding with the Ogden Edwards narrative, it might be well to here state that 
 young Van Meerbeek claimed, in December, 1881, that his family still had the only existing 
 portrait of Theodosia. This statement is, of course, patent error, but there still may remain, in 
 some of the ramifications of his family, an early portrait of that distinguished woman. (See 
 also Chapter on the Vanderlyn Portraits). 
 
 The Portrait of Aaron Burr presented to this Society by John Chetwood, Esq., was found 
 in Milburn, in this County. 
 
 The relatives of Aaron Burr, Senior, President of Princeton College, knew that his son, 
 prior to his breaking up his house in New York City, had a portrait of his father and mother, 
 but they had disappeared, and although much sought for could not be found. It was reported, 
 however, that Aaron Burr had entrusted them, with other family effects, to the care of a man 
 by the name of Keaser, who for some years had been his body servant. 
 
 Judge Ogden Edwards, of the city of New York, who was a relative of Aaron Burr on his 
 mother's side, had for many years made diligent inquiries for this Keaser, but could get no 
 trace of him. 
 
 He had subsequently given up the hope of obtaining any clue to the lost portraits, and 
 ceased his efforts, when, in 1847, passing through Pearl Street in the city of New York, he 
 heard a person call to a drayman "Keaser come here with your cart and take these boxes." 
 The Judge's curiosity was excited and he immediately turned to the drayman as he drove up 
 
 i 4 } 
 
to the store and inquired if his name was Keaser. He said it was. The Judge then informed 
 him that for some time he had been trying to find a man by the name of Keaser, who was in 
 the employ of Aaron Burr at the time he lived in New York. The drayman replied that his 
 father did for some years live with Aaron Burr, but he had no recollection of it, as it was be- 
 fore he was born, but he had heard his father often speak of Aaron Burr and of his living with 
 him, and that his father had been dead for some years. The Judge asked him if his father had 
 any portraits of Aaron Burr. The drayman said he never knew of any, but his sister who was 
 much older than he, and who was a girl at the time his father lived with Aaron Burr, might 
 give him some information on the subject, and stated where his sister lived. 
 
 The Judge immediately started in pursuit of the sister and found her in a small room in 
 one of the many alleys inhabited by the poor in the crowded streets and alleys of the city ; and 
 was informed by her that her father had been in the employ of Aaron Burr, and when Burr 
 fled from the city he left a great many things with her father, and that she remembered seeing 
 some portraits, but what her father had done with them she could not tell, and referred the 
 Judge to an older sister who was married and lived in the "Short Hills of New Jersey." 
 
 The Judge made many inquiries of the woman, but she evidently was unwilling to give 
 him any information as to what had been left by Aaron Burr with her father, or what he had 
 done with the property entrusted to him. She, however, stated that her father had been poor 
 for some time before his death and the Judge concluded that he had disposed of it for his 
 support. 
 
 As the Judge had never heard of the "Short Hills of New Jersey," he inquired of the 
 woman where the Short Hills of New Jersey were, and she being really ignorant or not willing 
 to give the information, said she did not know — that all she knew about them was, that her 
 sister and her husband several years before came into New York to see her, and stated that 
 they lived in the Short Hills of New Jersey. 
 
 As no further information could be obtained from her, the Judge determined to find these 
 Hills, and soon after came to Newark and called on John Chetwood, Esq., who was then prac- 
 ticing law in this city to learn their location. On being told that they were but about eight 
 miles from Newark, he informed Mr. Chetwood of his object and proposed taking a ride 
 thither in pursuit of the lost portraits. Mr. Chetwood accepted the invitation, and they rode 
 out to Springfield and were directed to the Hills on the west of the village, and after many 
 inquiries they found the residence of the elder sister of Keaser, which was a small building 
 with a lean-to, having but one room and an unfurnished low garret. 
 
 On entering the house the Judge recognized two portraits which hung on the wall as those 
 of Aaron Burr and of Theodosia, his daughter, who married Governor Ashton of South Caro- 
 lina. The only persons in the house were the sister of Keaser they were seeking, and several 
 small children. They evidently were very poor. After some conversation with the woman the 
 Judge offered the woman $5 for the pictures. She at once accepted it. The Judge asked her if 
 she had any more, she said she had not, when a little boy said to his mother there were two in 
 the garret that 'baby used to play with.' The woman said yes, but they were good for nothing. 
 But at the request of the Judge she sent the boy up to get them, telling him one was in the 
 window where the glass was broken out. 
 
 { 5 } 
 
The boy went up the ladder which led to the garret and brought down two pieces of can- 
 vas which had been in oval frames. On spreading them out the Judge at once recognized them 
 as the lost portraits of President Burr and his wife. The portrait of President Burr was much 
 defaced, one of the eyes was gone, the paint having evidently been picked off the canvas in 
 several places, and in other places broken off by folding. These two portraits the Judge also 
 purchased. 
 
 The only information the woman could or would give, was that they were pictures her 
 father had given to her and she kept them for some time, and the Judge left with the prizes he 
 had for years been seeking. 
 
 On brushing off the dust they were found to be very fine paintings. Several artists have 
 judged them to have been painted by Stuart. The portrait of President Burr is the only one 
 known to have been taken. The portrait of Theodosia was a most beautiful painting, repre- 
 senting a woman just budding into life in full freshness of perfect beauty. 
 
 The Judge had the portrait of President Burr carefully cleaned and repaired, and from it 
 was engraved the only likeness we now have of President Burr. 
 
 As the Judge had a portrait of Aaron Burr, the son, he presented the one they found to 
 Mr. Chetwood, who, in 1849, on leaving for California left it with me, to be presented in his 
 name to the Society, and as his gift it has been an interesting ornament to our room. 
 
 I have given these statements as they were related to me by Mr. Chetwood at the time 
 the portraits were found. 
 
 (Communication from David A. Hayes, Esq., respecting the Original Portrait of Aaron 
 Burr, in the possession of the New Jersey Historical Society). 
 
 The following courteous letter from Mr. Mooney is instructive. It tells us that he painted 
 a copy of the original Reverend Aaron Burr's portrait, and refers me to Dr. McLean for the 
 sadly abused original. What has become of this original portrait of the Reverend Aaron Burr 
 and that of his wife I know not. Perhaps some of the authorities of Princeton College would 
 know of the whereabouts of the portrait of the Reverend Aaron Burr and some of the Edwards 
 family might know of the whereabouts of the portrait of his wife. 
 
 "Upper Red Hook 
 Dec 26/82 
 
 D r . J. E. Stillwell 
 My dear Sir 
 
 I take the first opportunity to acknowledge your favor of 7 inst. which I found waiting 
 my return home — had it arrived in due time (as I did not leave until the 12 th ) I should gladly 
 have called on you in the City ; which would have been more to our mutual satisfaction — I 
 painted a portrait of President Burr, for Princeton College from a dilapidated picture which 
 D r . M c Lean told me was found (together with Mrs Burr's in a roll) in the loft of some house 
 in New Jersey — It was greatly defaced — the paint had flaked & fallen off in consequence of 
 the canvas being dry, but by placing it against the light in a window I was able to fill up the 
 denuded parts & recover the form & features from which I made the Copy — I must have re- 
 
 < 6 > 
 
turned the original to D 1 *. M c Lean who will remember the fact, & may be able to tell you what 
 disposal he made of it — 
 
 I also painted a portrait of Judge Edwards, who sent to my room two portraits; one of 
 Col. Burr, the other of his daughter Theodosia; both painted by Gilbert Stuart — & at the re- 
 quest of Judge Edwards, Martin Van Buren & D r . Duer of Columbia College, called to see 
 them — Mrs Van Buren & Theodosia having been intimate friends — I think you will find a son 
 of Judge Edwards (lawyer) in the City, who can give you information of these portraits, & 
 may have them in his possession — 
 
 I have seen no other portrait of Col. Burr, except a profile, cabinet size, painted by Van- 
 derlyn, protege of Burr's — now in possession of the Historical Society — This is all the infor- 
 mation I can give you, which I send with pleasure, hoping it may be of service to you — I shall 
 be glad to call upon you in my next visit to the City, perhaps a month or two hence — Of 
 Burr's servant appropriating his effects I know nothing — I shall be glad to see your portraits 
 of Col Burr — 
 
 If you have a Vanderlyn I shall readily recognize it for he was one of our best painters 
 I anticipate pleasure in calling upon you & thank you for communicating with me in 
 relation to the matter 
 
 Very truly yours 
 
 Edw Mooney" 
 
 October, 1892, my kinsman Professor John Stillwell Schenck, of Princeton College, wrote 
 me: We (i. e. the College) have a portrait of President Burr — none of his wife or of Col. Burr. 
 Ours (i. e. Reverend Aaron Burr) was painted, from the much damaged original, by Mooney, 
 whose country place is Upper Red Hook, N.Y. And in a subsequent letter he stated that the 
 original portrait of the Reverend Aaron Burr and his wife were painted by Smybert. 
 
 i 7 } 
 
The Gilbert Stuart Portrait of Colonel Burr 
 
 And Its Copy By 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
 HOSE who have ancestors painted by Gilbert Stuart are fortunate. Gilbert 
 Stuart is one of the most satisfying and brilliant portraitists of all nations and 
 times, and the distinction and acclaim which he now receives is well merited. 
 Born in 1754, in Rhode Island, a pupil of Benjamin West's in England, he 
 painted until 1792, in Great Britain, when he returned to America. He re- 
 mained in New York until 1794; thence to Philadelphia and Washington until 1806, when he 
 removed to Boston where he remained until his death in 1828. It was doubtless promptly fol- 
 lowing his arrival in New York, in 1792, that Stuart painted Colonel Burr. Burr was then 
 thirty-six years of age. It is difficult, most difficult, for me to recognize in the Gilbert Stuart 
 portrait, owned by the New Jersey Historical Society, the features of Burr made familiar to 
 us by the brushes of Vanderlyn and Sharpies and the burin of St. Memin. To be sure the Stu- 
 art portrait is a two-thirds full face, while the others are all in profile, yet the dissimilarity is 
 insistent inasmuch as the Stuart face is insensitive, the eyes are lacking in fire and the nose 
 and upper lip are wanting in delicacy. There is some resemblance, however, in the shape of the 
 forehead and perhaps the nose bears some likeness to that of the full face portrait of Col. Burr 
 by Vanderlyn, painted a short time later. Then again too the Stuart picture has more the 
 dreamy look of an artist and poet, dressed neglige, rather than the astute look of the lawyer 
 and politician, which Burr was known to be, but the dignity and repose of the subject offset 
 these detractions. Despite any faulty resemblance there exists evidence, indubitable and con- 
 vincing, to prove this attribution to Stuart is correct: 
 
 (1) It is known that the Bowrowsons carried off the Burr portraits and that Judge Ogden 
 Edwards discovered them, in 1847, at Short Hills, New Jersey, with this one among them; 
 that he presented it to his friend John Chetwood, Esq., who, leaving for California, in 1849, 
 left the painting to David A. Hayes, Esq., to be presented to the Society, which was done 
 May 18, 1854, who subsequently submitted a communication concerning it, which was 
 printed in the Proceedings of the Society, in Vol. X, p. 170, in 1865-6. 
 
 It is inconceivable that Judge Edwards, Burr's first cousin, whose intimacy with him was 
 continuous and affectionate to the very end, and who must have known of the existence of the 
 Stuart painting and its annexation by the Bowrowsons, could possibly have gone wrong in its 
 identification. 
 
 (2) William Dunlap, in his History of The Arts of Design, tells us that this portrait of 
 Burr, painted by Stuart, was copied by John Vanderlyn,* when a youthful student of art in 
 New York, which was about, I deduce, in 1794-95, when Vanderlyn was aged eighteen or 
 nineteen, and that he took his copy of the Burr portrait to Kingston, where he sold it to Ma- 
 
 *In Parlon's Life of Burr, Vol. II, p. 376, appears a letter from Robert Gosman, of Kingston, stating that John Vanderlyn 
 copied a portrait of Col. Burr by Stuart, which was bought by the representative in Congress, Major Van Gasebeck. This confirms 
 Dunlap. 
 
 i 8 } 
 
Aaron Burr 
 
 New Jersey Historical Society 
 
 Gilbert Stuart 
 
jor Van Gaasbeck, then a Member of Congress from Ulster County. This Major Van Gaas- 
 beck proves to be Peter Van Gaasbeck, a man prominent in public life in the early part of the 
 19th century. Burr's portrait passed from him to his daughter, Sarah Van Gaasbeck, who dis- 
 posed of the painting during her life time, as I was informed, Nov. 8, 1882, by her legatee and 
 executor, Charles K. Westbrook, of Ogdensburg, St. Lawrence County, New York. To whom 
 it went Mr. Westbrook did not know, but Oct. 25th, 1882, 1 found it in the possession of Mr. 
 Henry A. Burr, of 44 East 34th Street, New York City, who informed me that he had owned 
 it over twenty-five years and that its previous owner had been Mr. George Burns, who either 
 lived in West 39th Street, New York City, or Athens, opposite Hudson, New York, and that 
 he, Burns, had had it for twenty years and had secured it, either directly from a New York 
 bank president or directly from a man politically prominent in Kingston, with the statement 
 that it was a copy by Vanderlyn of Stuart's portrait of Burr. Burns met with reverses and sold 
 the painting at public auction, where Mr. Henry A. Burr became its owner, for $210., the New 
 York Historical Society bidding against him. I suspect that this Vanderlyn copy of Stuart's 
 painting was the lot No. 2013^, which was sold as "Likeness of Col. Aaron Burr, painted by 
 Stuart" April 27, 1852, by John L. Vandewater & Co., at their salesroom, No. 12 Wall Street, 
 New York City, in an auction of "Revolutionary Reminiscences, Being the Balance of the ex- 
 tensive Collection of the Late Col. Aaron Burr, Consisting in part of the Original Letters of Wash- 
 ington, Hancock, Nathaniel Green, Hamilton, Lord Stirling, Lee, Gov. Taylor, Elias Boudinol, 
 Timothy Pickering, Alex Hamilton, Count Pulaski, Clinton and many others. . . . Also, a Like- 
 ness of Col. Burr by Stuart, with many other interesting Relics." The lot following, No. 201%, 
 was "Card Plate of Mrs. Alston, daughter of Aaron Burr, who was taken by pirates." The total 
 amounted to 537 numbers. Seldom have pictures ever had a clearer provenance and it may be 
 considered as established beyond dubiety that the original Gilbert Stuart portrait of Burr is 
 now owned by the New Jersey Historical Society, while the copy of it, made by Vanderlyn is 
 now in the possession of Princeton College, to which it passed from the heirs of the late Henry 
 A. Burr, Esq. When I met this gentleman, in 1882, I was young, and he seemed old. He was 
 then living in opulence as a retired merchant and all things pertaining to Col. Burr were most 
 alluring to him. As a measure of his enthusiasm, he remarked that Burr's greatest error was 
 that he had not shot and killed Hamilton twenty years before he did, in which I guess all 
 Burrites concur. He showed me among his possessions, the ring presented by Talleyrand to 
 Col. Burr, when leaving America for Europe. It was the heaviest ring I ever saw, beautifully 
 chased gold holding a stone engraved with a profile figure with a shooting star or comet be- 
 hind the head, supposed to typify Burr's career. The ring was given to Henry A. Burr, Esq., 
 by Miss Theodosia Prevost, who died at Englewood, N. J., in 1864, who received it as a gift 
 directly from Col. Aaron Burr. She likewise gave Mr. Burr the Colonel's cigar case and snuff 
 box. Another relic that Mr. Burr prized highly was the spectacles that Col. Burr wore until 
 his death, which appear in the Vandyck portrait. These he received from the gifted and ami- 
 able authoress, Mrs. Ann S. Stephens. 
 
 To revert once again to the Vanderlyn copy of Stuart's Burr. It was a canvas about two 
 feet by two and a half feet, painted at half-length, with the figure seated. The impression that 
 the painting made upon me, in 1882, over forty years ago, and I have not seen it since, was 
 
 i 9 } 
 
not pleasing, and while that opinion with riper judgment might now be modified, I recall it as 
 having an effeminate face, one lacking in strong fines, with high and prominent cheek bones; 
 a forehead large and bare, with the dark brown hair lying tight to the scalp, as if tightly drawn 
 back on the crown, and long and curly on the sides hiding the ears. A kerchief-like drapery 
 enveloped the neck, and below it on the front of his costume, appeared a few dashes of scarlet 
 color. Subsequently I saw the original portrait by Stuart, in the New Jersey Historical Soci- 
 ety, but I was too concerned in securing a photograph of it to study it. 
 
 At the same time Vanderlyn copied the Stuart Burr, in 1794, he copied a portrait of Eg- 
 bert Benson, also by Stuart. At that date, 1794, Benson was forty-eight years of age, which 
 establishes the fact that Stuart must have painted two portraits of Benson, the one now in 
 the New York Historical Society, presented by Robert Benson, Jr., painted in 1807, when 
 Benson was sixty-one years old which conforms to his looks in the picture, and the other, the 
 one copied by Vanderlyn, in 1794, which Vanderlyn promptly sold to C. E. Elmendorf, Es- 
 quire. The whereabouts of the original of this first portrait of Benson by Stuart, and of its 
 copy by Vanderlyn, I know nothing of. 
 
 The Beacon Biographies Of Eminent Americans contain a volume on Aaron Burr by 
 Henry Charles Merwin, (Boston, 1899). "The photogravure used as a frontispiece to this vol- 
 ume is from a photograph of the painting by Gilbert Stuart, in the Possession of the New Jer- 
 sey Historical Society. The present engraving is by John Andrews & Son, Boston." It is about 
 three inches high by two and a quarter inches wide and on too small a scale to give the correct 
 values. 
 
 Long after my own notes were gathered Lawrence Park's Gilbert Stuart. An Illustrated 
 Descriptive List of His Work was printed. He described the Stuart portrait of Aaron Burr as 
 follows: "New York, c. 1794. Canvas, 29% x 24% inches. He is shown bust, three quarters 
 left, with his brown eyes directed to the spectator. His complexion is ruddy and his dark 
 brown hair, brushed back and turning gray above his forehead, is tied with a queue bow. He 
 wears a loose, grayish-black coat or morning gown, and a white loose shirt collar; a red waist- 
 coat is seen above the lapels of his coat. The background is plain, of reddish-brown tones, the 
 red being more pronounced around the head, and particularly near the right side of the face, 
 with brown tones towards the edge of the canvas." Then follows the narrative which appeared 
 in the New Jersey Historical Society's Proceedings for 1865-66, which is reproduced under my 
 chapter on the Bowrowsons. Park further states that this portrait was listed as No. 22 by 
 Fielding but not listed by Mason. Park then lists the Vanderlyn copy of this Stuart painting 
 as "A Replica of the Preceding" and states that it is owned by the Museum of Historic Art at 
 Princeton University, Princeton, N. J., and that it was presented about 1915, by W. 0. Morse, 
 Esquire, in the name of two descendants of Aaron Burr: Harriet Burr Morse and Marie Burr 
 Hanna Curran. According to the donor, the portrait has always been in the possession of Burr 
 descendants." 
 
 Reproduced, in half tone, in "Romantic Days in the Early Republic" by Mary C. Craw- 
 ford, 19 12, facing page 111. Not listed in Mason. 
 
 Aside from Park's gross error of describing Vanderlyn's copy, as a replica by Stuart, two 
 trifling misstatements occur in his history of the painting: (a) Aaron Burr had no descendants 
 in 1915, and (b) the portrait was only acquired by Mr. Henry A. Burr by purchase some fifty- 
 eight or fifty-nine years after its origin. 
 
 i io > 
 
The Trumbull Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Colonel Burr 
 
 N MARCH 19th and 20th, 1896, now some thirty-two years ago, The American 
 Art Association of New York City, sold, at auction, a remarkable collection of 
 portraits and miniatures of American Revolutionary Generals, Statesmen and 
 other celebrities, painted between 1775 and 1819, by John Trumbull, the able 
 young artist, who was an aide-de-camp to Washington during the war and 
 who, by reason of his position, had a rare opportunity to frequently meet his subjects at close 
 range. The collection was the property of Mr. Edward Frossard, of Brooklyn, New York. 
 Number 357, of the Catalogue, was: Major Aaron Burr. Pen and ink portrait on card board. 
 J. T. 1786. 7x5 inches. 
 
 Number 358, of the same Catalogue, was: Sealed frame, containing lock of hair set in 
 locket Major Aaron Burrs Hair. J. T. 
 
 Later, this miniature portrait was exhibited by Dodd, Mead & Co., of New York City, 
 the book dealers. 
 
 From Trumbull's well known brilliancy as a technician and portraitist, this little work 
 should be a fine and accurate rendition of Burr's features, but, Oct. 6, 1923, Mr. Robert Hoc 
 Dodd says: that "the picture was small and not very good," and that, while the 1896 records 
 of his firm have been destroyed, they bought nothing at the Frossard Sale, and that the Burr 
 portrait, with others of Mr. Frossard's collection, were merely on exhibition with them; and 
 that the consensus of opinion was that Trumbull did not paint these miniatures, and that 
 probably everything in the sale was a fake. What Mr. Dodd said "is from memory and he par- 
 ticularly explained the fact that all he says is a possibility ; he does not feel he can speak with 
 authority." Of this miniature I have no photograph nor do I know its present whereabouts. 
 
 i 11 > 
 
The Two Sharpies' Portraits 
 
 Of 
 
 Colonel Aaron Burr 
 
 AMES SHARPLES was an Englishman, born in 1752-53. He was a pastelistof 
 ability and sincerity and crayoned the small cabinet portraits by which he is 
 known, with great rapidity, often completing them in two hours. For the pro- 
 files he charged, in America, the modest price of fifteen dollars, while for the 
 full-faced ones he added five dollars more. 
 The colored chalks that he used were manufactured by himself and applied it is stated, 
 not in stick form as is common, but in powder by a camel's hair brush through an adhesive 
 medium upon a thick gray or brown paper of soft grain and woolly texture. The color scheme 
 of his portraits was generally low and their size was commonly 9 by 12 inches. Occasionally he 
 painted these small portraits in oils. 
 
 I give in detail here all the information I have obtained concerning James Sharpies, his 
 wife Ellen Sharpies and his children, hoping it may be instrumental in allocating their works. 
 Of this there is need because (1) of the prevailing belief that, besides making original pro- 
 ductions, they copied each others work; (2) because most of their portraits are unsigned; (3) 
 because the descriptions used a century ago do not correspond with those of today — the word 
 painting then being used synonomously with crayon and pastel, and the word miniature then 
 being used to describe portraits of reduced size (9 inches by 12 inches) and not limited, as we 
 of today use it, to those of the smallest type. 
 
 While in England James Sharpies was of Cambridge, from 1779 to 1781 ; of Bath, in 1782, 
 and of 45 Gerrard Street, Soho, London, in 1783, and exhibited at the Royal Academy be- 
 tween 1779 and 1785, fourteen portraits. 
 
 It is stated that he visited the United States in 1794 and forthwith proceeded to Phila- 
 delphia where he crayoned many prominent individuals. However, the Philadelphia Directory 
 fails to mention him in 1796, but in 1797 "James Sharpless, portrait painter, 164, South Front 
 St." is given. In 1798, he fails to appear in Philadelphia, but is registered in the New York 
 Directory as James Sharpies, portrait painter, 272 Greenwich, and again in 1799, as James 
 Sharpies, portrait painter, Upper Reed [Street]. He then returned to England where, after a 
 stay of some years, he revisited this country in 1809, and resided in New York City where the 
 Directories of 1810 and 1811 call him portrait painter with residence at Lispenard [Street]. 
 Here he soon died. His burial notice in The Public Advertiser, New York, Feb. 28, 1811, reads: 
 Died. On Tuesday morning at 6 o'clock, James Sharpies, Esq., in the 59 th year of his age. 
 His friends and acquaintances are invited to attend his funeral from his late dwelling, N°. 3 
 Lispenard street upper end of Church street, this afternoon at 4 o'clock. 
 
 His will was probated in less than a fortnight following his decease and reads as follows: 
 
 { 12 } 
 
Aaron Burr James Sharples 
 
 Before Restoration 
 Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
I, James Sharpies of the City of New York, bequeath unto my beloved wife Ellen Sharpies 
 all my property of what denomination soever, consisting of Five thousand pounds Sterling 
 lately remitted to the house of Messrs. Barclay Tritton Bevon & Co. of Lombard Street Lon- 
 don for my use and the balance of my old account in their hands — Also about Five thousand 
 dollars now in the Merchants Bank of New York — all my household furniture, Pictures, 
 Books &c. subject to the several legacies herein mentioned namely : To my son George Sharpies 
 by my first wife who has already received his mother's marriage portion, I give two hundred 
 pounds Sterling; to my son Felix Tho s . Sharpies by my second wife, I give five hundred 
 pounds Sterling, having already assigned to him about eighteen hundred acres of land in the 
 State of Pennsylvania; to my son James Sharpies and unto my amiable daughter Bolinda 
 Sharpies each one thousand pounds, all legacies to be paid within twelve months after my 
 decease. Wife Ellen, sole executrix. Dated Jan. 28, 1811. Proved March 11, 1811. Witnesses: 
 Jn°. A. Dunlap. Jacob Rad cliff. Abstract of Will of James Sharpies in The New York Historical 
 Society. 
 
 This instrument sheds much fight upon James Sharpies' immediate family and upon the 
 size of his estate. Without any knowledge of his forebears it is impossible to state whether his 
 modest wealth was inherited or acquired. If it was the latter, it speaks well for his popularity 
 his activity and his thrift. Apparently all of his children were successful and his widow frugal, 
 for her estate after surviving her husband thirty-eight years, represented all, if not more than, 
 the net sum he bequeathed her. This last wife was Ellen Wallace. A card at the back of a small 
 crayon, of much merit, of a lady wearing a mob cap and fichu, states that she is "Ellen Wal- 
 lace, of Lancaster, painted, during the hours he wooed the fair Ellen, by that eminent artist 
 in crayons, James Sharpies, her happy husband." This interesting and apparently self com- 
 plimentary reference appeared in Notes and Queries forty-two years ago. Neither the name nor 
 residence of the owner of the pastel was then given, and I have seen no further allusion to it 
 since. Concerning her it is known that she was living at 45 Gerrard Street, Soho, London, in 
 1783, when she exhibited a fruit piece at the Royal Academy, and was described as "em- 
 broideress to Her Majesty." Her address was likewise at this date the same as her husband's. 
 Between 1783 and 1807, she exhibited six miniatures at the Royal Academy and the Society 
 of Artists. In 1807, she was living at 82 Hatton Gardens, London, and exhibited five or six 
 "miniatures" including Gen 1 . Washington, Sir Joseph Banks and Dr. Priestley, pastels, the 
 Washington and Priestley now being in the National Portrait Gallery. This establishes the 
 important fact that Mrs. Sharpies accompanied her husband on his first trip to America and 
 tho' she is described as a portrait painter and her specialty that of a miniaturist that these 
 terms stood for pastelist of small portraits which we know she was. To be sure her fruit piece 
 could have hardly been made in any other medium than oil paint and would not be on a mini- 
 ature scale, but the fact remains she worked mostly in crayon. 
 
 I further believe that Mrs. Sharpies accompanied her husband upon his second visit to 
 the States in 1809. The proof of this lies in the language of his will and in the administration of 
 his estate. When this work was completed, Mrs. Sharpies sailed to England and took up a 
 residence first in Bath, then in London, and finally in Bristol, where she died March 14, 1849. 
 As she had outlived her children, she left her property, amounting to £4,600, to the Bristol 
 
 { 13 > 
 
Academy of Fine Arts, which she had founded some five years before by a gift of £2,000. Her 
 obituary appeared in the Gentlemen's Magazine, for May, 1849 : 
 
 Mrs. Sharpies 
 
 [1849] March 14. At Bristol Hotwells, aged 80, Mrs. Sharpies 
 Some five years since Mrs. Sharpies presented to the trustees of the Bristol Fine Arts Academy 
 the sum of £2,000 for the purpose of founding and supporting that institution; and it now ap- 
 pears from the deceased lady's will, that, after deducting certain bequests and legacies, the 
 whole residue of her property is bequeathed to the Academy. Her funeral was attended by one 
 mourning coach, containing J. S. Harford, esq. President; P. W. S. Miles, esq. M.P., Vice 
 President; the High Sheriff; and G. H. Ames, esq. the Treasurer of the Fine Arts Academy. 
 The Honorary Secretary, Jere Hill, esq. and Robert Bright, esq. one of the trustees of the 
 Academy, followed on foot, together with the members of the committee, and nearly all the 
 resident artists of Bristol, in deep mourning. Gentleman's Magazine, new ser., Vol. xxxi, 
 page 554, May, 1849. 
 
 In the settlement of James Sharpies' estate there appeared in the Public Advertiser, (New 
 York City), of April 6, 1811, the following announcement, which sheds some light upon his 
 social position, his culture and the disposal of a portion, if not all, of his personally owned 
 crayon portraits: 
 
 The Collection 
 
 Of Original Portraits of Distinguished American Characters painted by the late James 
 Sharpies, Esq., are for sale, and may be seen at N°. 3 Lispenard Street, upper end of Church 
 street. 
 
 Also 
 
 A Capital Grand PIANO FORTE, of Broadwood's, selected with great care by an emi- 
 nent Musician, and other competent judges, who considered it the best toned instrument to 
 be found in any Ware-house in London. 
 
 Like Stuart, St. Memin and others, Sharpies made replicas of his portraits for business 
 purposes or for his own gratification. Those not disposed of during his first sojourn here prob- 
 ably accompanied him to England. Those made and not privately disposed of during his sec- 
 ond visit, are probably those that his estate offered for sale in the preceding advertisement. 
 Perhaps some of them were sold, perhaps none. The fact remains that a collection of forty-five 
 of these small pastels, representing a group of important early Americans, remained intact. 
 One of its owners, a Virginian it is said, obtained a loan of one hundred and fifty dollars on it, 
 but by default in repayment it was lost to him. In 1876, George W. Childs, Esquire, bought 
 and presented this valuable collection to the city of Philadelphia, where it is appropriately 
 hung in Independence Hall. Some of the pastels were damaged. The color had flaked from the 
 card board in pin head spots, giving the impression of fly-speck or worm-hole damage, but 
 careful restoration by Farina, of that city, has brought them to a fine degree of perfection. 
 
 Fine works in pure condition by Sharpies are to be found at The New York Historical 
 Society. The artist also had the distinction of portraying George Washington, and he made a 
 
 { 14 > 
 
Aakon Burr James Sharples 
 
 After Restoration 
 Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
singularly fine, truthful but inartistic, profile portrait in oils, 8 by 10 inches, of Alexander 
 Hamilton, which was owned by the widow who outlived her husband fifty-two years, and died 
 in the city of New York in 1856, at the age of ninety-seven years, bequeathing the portrait to 
 her youngest son, Philip Hamilton, who, dying, it passed to his son the late Dr. Allan McLane 
 Hamilton. (Reproduced in Scribner's Magazine.) 
 
 Probably the best opportunity afforded to study the unquestioned work of James 
 Sharpies would be the collection in Independence Hall, Philadelphia; and the best opportun- 
 ity offered to study the combined work of the Sharpies family would be the collection in the 
 Bristol Museum and Art Galley. This collection, through the generosity of Miss Helen C. 
 Frick, has been photographed and is accessible at The Frick Art Reference Library, New York 
 City. Three of the four Sharpies children possessed art talent. 
 
 There was George, a son by the first wife, who I conceive is the G. Sharpies, resident of 
 London, whose specialty was portraits, of which he exhibited (6) six at the Royal Academy 
 between 1815 and 1823. 
 
 Next there was James Sharpies, Jr., called Esquire, who was described as a portrait 
 painter and an exhibitor at the Royal Academy, who died at Bristol, August 10, 1839. 
 
 Then follows Rolinda Sharpies who was described as a resident of Bristol, a painter of 
 portraits, likewise a specialist in Domestic scenes and an exhibitor at the Royal Academy from 
 1820 to 1836. She died February 10, 1838, and left to the Bristol Society of Fine Arts several 
 of her father's portraits. 
 
 Lastly we must consider Felix Thomas Sharpies, the eldest son of the artist by his second 
 wife. I have seen no association of his name with art other than its appearance upon the back- 
 ing of the pastel portrait of Alexander Hamilton, owned by the New York Historical Society. 
 Here it is signed twice, once as Felix Sharpies and again as Felix T. Sharpies. This pastel is 
 crayoned upon thin brown flock paper, bears no signature and is covered with glass both front 
 and back. Glass-covered pictures are, and always have been, sealed with paper to prevent dust 
 infiltration and it is upon paper used for such a purpose, that the name of Felix T. Sharpies 
 occurs. On this same paper, accompanying these two signatures, are many numerals, some 
 scattered, some arranged in the shape of multiplication tables; likewise an attempt at a geo- 
 metrical design. Two, if not more, layers of such inscribed paper are used to back the Hamil- 
 ton pastel. In other words the filling is simply scrap paper — paper used in the education of 
 children and then discarded and from my view point the signature thereon bears no relation 
 to the author. If further proof is needed to disprove the attribution of this particular painting 
 to Felix T. Sharpies it is at hand. Admitting precocity exists it is too great a strain upon im- 
 agination to accept the Hamilton portrait as a work of a boy of tender years. We have de- 
 duced that Felix T. Sharpies was born about 1787. He was probably with his father during his 
 first visit to America, 1794-1799, hence seven to twelve years old. He was probably likewise 
 with his father in 1809, upon his second visit to the States, but Hamilton had then been dead 
 five years. The Hamilton portrait was presented to the New York Historical Society Nov. 12, 
 1816, by Dr. Samuel Akerly. It has no recorded history but I believe that it was beyond dubi- 
 ety one of the "Original Portraits of Distinguished American Characters painted by the late 
 James Sharpies, Esq.," which were advertised for sale April 6, 1811, in New York City. That 
 
 { 15 } 
 
Felix T. Sharpies was an artist and a copyist of his father's work will, however, be fully proven 
 by Mrs. McCook Knox in her forthcoming exhaustive work on the Sharpies' family based 
 upon original research. 
 
 In the possession of Mr. Robert Fridenberg, of New York City, there is likewise a 
 Sharpies pastel, signed twice, directly on the back of the flock paper. It carries the name of 
 Rolinda Sharpies and there is a comment on the writing to the effect "that it was apparently 
 written by her at the age of ten." It is self-evident that such signatures as these possess no 
 evidential value of authorship. In this instance it is probable that an indulgent father allowed 
 his child the use of his drawing materials as playthings. 
 
 A resume of the preceding facts discloses: that James Sharpies was born 1752-3 and died 
 Feb. 28, 1811, in his 59 th year; that his wife Ellen Wallace was born in 1769 and died March 
 14, 1849, aged 80 years. Hence it follows she was seventeen years his junior and outlived him 
 thirty-eight years; that she survived her son, James Sharpies, by ten years, and her daughter 
 Rolinda Sharpies by eleven years. The early deaths of James Sharpies and his children, James 
 and Rolinda, are noteworthy. In the absence of any documentary proof I deduce that James 
 Sharpies married Ellen Wallace when she was about seventeen years of age and that their 
 children were born approximately as follows: Felix Thomas about 1787; James about 1789, 
 and Rolinda about 1791. 
 
 We now approach the consideration of the two Burr portraits accredited to James 
 Sharpies. 
 
 Of the one in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, there can be no doubt as to either artist 
 or sitter. The recognition is instantaneous. The origin of the group of pastels to which this one 
 of Burr belongs is elsewhere alluded to in this article. It was probably taken during Colonel 
 Burr's attendance, as a Member of Congress, at Philadelphia, in 1794, then the Capital of the 
 country, to which place Sharpies would naturally at once proceed. This deduction as to date 
 is based upon the assumption that Sharpies' first visit to this country has been correctly 
 stated as 1794; occasionally I have felt it may have been a year later. 
 
 During the period of Sharpies' last visit, 1809, Burr was practically a prisoner in Europe, 
 so with certainty his portrait must have been executed in 1794, or shortly thereafter. 
 
 Burr's portrait was among those that were damaged and its original delicacy of modelling 
 is lost. He was at this time about thirty-eight years of age and is represented at half length, 
 wearing a stock and ruffled shirt, with hair powdered and brushed back over the head, ter- 
 minating in a queue behind and a roll on the side above the ear which is portrayed abnormally 
 large; likewise small side whiskers. In this painting, from its necessary restoration, his features 
 lack mobility and sensitiveness. It is Burr, but not the resolute and elegant Burr; not the Burr 
 who was so extremely careful of his personal appearance; not the Burr who bought dusting 
 powder for his hair and who entered under date of Sept. 10, 1810, in his Diary "I was almost 
 the only person who was laced." The whereabouts of the original pastel is unknown. Before 
 its restoration by Farina, the replica of Burr's portrait, with its many imperfections, was 
 photographed by Ph. B. Wallace, of 711 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. Since its restoration it 
 has been used to illustrate several articles on Burr. A steel engraving of it, copyrighted 1903 
 
 i 16 } 
 
Aaron Blur James Sharples 
 
 Bristol Art Gallery, England 
 
by G. Barrie & Sons, appears in a History of the United States, Philadelphia, etc. 
 
 The Sharpies portrait likewise illustrates Ida M. Tarbell's magazine article on The Trial 
 Of Aaron Burr. 
 
 The Bristol pastel of Colonel Burr is at first sight unconvincing. It is only after a pro- 
 longed, careful study of the features that sufficient proof can be deduced to make it accept- 
 able. It wants the general elegance of dress and mien, the beau like quality, which character- 
 ized the man. Instead of a gentleman of fashion we have a puritan, a New England deacon of 
 early colonial days, with unkempt hair falling straight to the shoulder where it is crudely 
 banged and the only suggestion of a coiffure lies in a faintly outlined queue. He belongs to the 
 bourgeoisie. The drawing lacks delicacy of outline. Some of its defects may be accounted for 
 by damage to the easily perishable medium, crayon, in which it was executed. With all these 
 objections admitted I think it may be safely accepted as a portrait of Colonel Burr, perhaps 
 by Ellen Sharpies. We know that she crayoned Washington and Priestley, but whether the 
 portraits were originals or copies of her husband's work I have not the means at hand to de- 
 termine. That she did much good work as a portraitist in pastel is, however, an admitted fact. 
 The date at which the Bristol portrait of Burr was executed, whether it be the work of James 
 or Ellen Sharpies, should conform to the date of their first visit to this country. 
 
 References: Algernon Graves' Dictionary of Artists, London, 1884, page 211; Redgrave's 
 Dictionary of Artists, 1878, page 389; Gentleman s Magazine, 1839, page 435, and 1849, page 
 554, and Notes and Queries, 1886, page 268. 
 
The 1796 St. Memin Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Colonel Burr 
 
 HARLES BALTHAZAR JULIEN FEVRET DE ST. MEMIN, a member of 
 an illustrious French family, was born, at Dijon, France, in 1770. About the 
 year 1793, he crossed the Atlantic with his father, to secure from sequestration 
 the estates of his mother in Santo Domingo. The political disturbances there, 
 as well as in France, prompted father and son to turn to the United States for 
 an asylum. Here they were later joined by the female members of their family, who success- 
 fully established and conducted for years, a seminary for young ladies. M. Fevret de St. 
 Memin was a man of culture and varied attainments. He had reached the position of a Lieu- 
 tenant-Colonel in the army, was a profound mathematician, an artist, an archeologist, a cele- 
 brated engraver and a mechanical genius. He successfully employed his skill in devising two 
 instruments which he used in the production of the exquisitely engraved medallion portraits, 
 with which his name is associated, many of which represent illustrious Americans. These he 
 cleverly executed by drawing the head in profile, by one of the instruments, called the phy- 
 siono trace, in life-size in black crayon on dark pink tinted paper, about 12 inches wide by 18 
 inches high, and reducing the same, by the other instrument, called the pantograph, to suit- 
 ably small proportions for engraving. The original large sketch, framed, with the engraved 
 copper plate reducing it to a circular medallion not exceeding two and one-half inches in 
 diameter, with a dozen impressions, mezzotints, were delivered in three days or thereabouts, 
 for the sum of one hundred and sixty-five francs. Many of the physionotraces and the small 
 engravings are still to be found, some among the descendants of the sitters, some in historical 
 collections, and some in private collections. M. St. Memin generally kept two copies of the 
 engraving for himself, so that two sets,* one somewhat more complete than the other, returned 
 with him to France, in 1815, and remained in his possession till the time of his death, in 1852, 
 at Dijon, at the advanced age of eighty-two, and where he still was and had been the intelli- 
 gent Director of the celebrated museum of that place for many years. Both sets then returned 
 to America, where one of the collections was purchased by Elias Dexter, the print seller, of 
 New York City, and the other, consisting of eight hundred and eighteen engravings, passed to 
 the Corcoran Art Gallery. Mr. Dexter shortly determined to reproduce his set in book form, 
 by photography, the only reproduction process then known, and employed the services of J. 
 Gurney and Son, of New York City. The work was published by subscription, and instead of 
 gain, occasioned Mr. Dexter great loss. The Civil War in the States was under way and all the 
 Southern subscribers, and many of the Northern ones, were financially ruined, many were 
 killed, and nearly all lost, for the time at least, interest in their forebears. The photography 
 was excellent, and the reproductions numbered seven hundred and sixty portraits of men 
 
 *A third, small, domestic collection was formed by Peter Force, the compiler of historical documents, of three hundred and 
 thirty-one engravings, from all available sources. This incomplete set is now owned by the Library of Congress. 
 
 An interesting article on The Portraits of St. Memin appears in Appleton's Magazine, for July, 1906, by Charles Kasson 
 
 Wead. 
 
 i 18 } 
 
Aaron Burr 
 
 1796 
 
 St. Memin 
 
prominent in social, military, political and commercial life, with occasionally ladies of dis- 
 tinction. The photographs were grouped twelve on a page and the lives of the subjects were 
 briefly sketched, where possible, by Mr. Dexter, but despite his efforts, some, however, re- 
 mained unidentified. Collectively they made a fine folio volume, sumptuously bound in dark 
 green embossed morocco, with the following title: The St. Memin Collection of Portraits; 
 consisting of Seven Hundred and Sixty Medallion Portraits Principally of Distinguished 
 Americans Photographed by J. Gurney and Son, of New York, from proof impressions of the 
 original copper-plates, engraved by M. De St. Memin from drawings taken from life by him- 
 self, during his exile in the United States, from 1793 to 1814. To which are added A Memoir 
 of M. De St. Memin and Biographical Notices of the Persons whose Portraits constitute the 
 Collection, compiled from authentic and original sources, by the publisher. New York. Pub- 
 lished by Elias Dexter, No. 562 B'way, 1862. 
 
 Few volumes ever got into circulation, for the editor was too discouraged to have many 
 copies struck from the negatives. His son, Edward Dexter, succeeded him in business and as 
 the owner of the original set of impressions, he was not averse to selling individual engravings. 
 Whether he did or did not, I do not know, but the engraving of Colonel Burr and his daughter 
 were offered to me, but at a price that I was then unable to pay. Subsequently the Dexter col- 
 lection passed to H. L. Carson, of Philadelphia, and, as at his sale it brought $4,800., and in- 
 cluded seven hundred and sixty-one mezzotints, it could not have been diminished. Of the 
 present location of the Dexter collection I am uninformed. 
 
 St. Memin's work was excellent. His likenesses were correct and, with few exceptions, he 
 endowed his sitters with mobile faces and graceful figures, while technically his work was sel- 
 dom equalled. As he moved southward from New York City to Charleston, South Carolina, 
 he secured his portraiture wherever opportunity offered, so that his collection, so far as 
 America was concerned, was cosmopolite. 
 
 In the collection of St. Memin's portraits, published by Dexter, there is one of Colonel 
 Burr and one of his daughter Theodosia, both by St. Memin himself, and another of Theo- 
 dosia, by John Vanderlyn, copied by St. Memin. The profile of Colonel Burr, though undated, 
 was doubtless made in 1796, in New York City, where St. Memin was industriously at work. 
 The arrangement of the sitter's hair and the style of dress, as well as the fact that the com- 
 panion engraving of his daughter Theodosia, bears the date 1796, warrant this assumption. A 
 year later her devoted parent had St. Memin copy the small Vanderlyn portrait, which, 
 though it bears the date 1797, placed upon it by St. Memin, as the year of his production, was 
 in reality painted the year before, 1796, by Vanderlyn. It evidently had a strong appeal to 
 Colonel Burr, or to St. Memin himself, to be thus reproduced. 
 
 The likeness of Colonel Burr carries no name; it needed no label. Colonel Burr was then 
 about forty years old and at the zenith of his intellectual vigor and political power; loved 
 idolatrously by his adherents and feared and hated by his opponents. St. Memin no doubt 
 gives a faithful likeness of him. Naturally the head is drawn in profile. His hair is full and 
 drawn into a queue and though fight, was probably not powdered. The use of queue and pow- 
 der by 1803, was largely abandoned save by the elders. All ears looked much alike to St. 
 Memin and Burr's are not distinctive. His neck is encircled by a soft stock terminating in a 
 
 i 19 y 
 
loose tie. He wears the habiliments of a gentleman of that period : — a velvet collar on his outer 
 coat and a white vest with a rolling collar within. His head is well proportioned. His face 
 shows few lines and has plasticity from the exquisite shadows St. Memin introduced in his 
 modelling. His nose, the oft baffling feature of the sculptors and artists who essayed it, is 
 delicately modelled. The handling of the mouth and lips alone mar the beauty of the face and 
 give it a quizzical, even if not a slightly sinister expression. I know nothing of the existence of 
 either the physionotrace sketch, the pantograph plate or the engravings struck therefrom, of 
 this portrait of Colonel Burr. This portrait is used to illustrate the magazine article, Hamil- 
 ton s Estimate Of Burr. 
 
 i 20 } 
 
Aaron Burr St. Memin 
 
 1805 
 
The 1805 St. Memin Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Colonel Burr 
 
 PORTRAIT of Colonel Burr, in black crayon upon white paper, was owned 
 about 1887, by the bookseller, J. W. Bouton, of New York City, who offered it 
 for sale at one hundred dollars. It was perfectly reproduced as "an original and 
 unpublished drawing from nature by Saint Memin," in the Curio, for Decem- 
 ber, 1887, an art magazine which had a short life in New York. Of its origin 
 and fate I know nothing. I recall it when in Bouton's hands as a fine free offhand sketch of 
 great virility, representing Colonel Burr as keen and aggressive, with a flashing eye, a dilating 
 nostril and a determined mouth and chin. There is no doubt in my mind it was one of St. 
 Memin's physionotraces, and from the loss of his hair and the lines in his face, Colonel Burr 
 was at least ten years older than when he sat for St. Memin in 1796. If the assumption is cor- 
 rect that it was made approximately about 1806, it could have been done in November, 1805, 
 at Washington, for St. Memin and Burr were both there at that date. Less likely was it done 
 in 1807, when Colonel Burr was in Richmond undergoing trial for treason, of which he was 
 acquitted in June, 1807, and St. Memin was in Georgetown, but a short distance away, for it 
 would hardly have been a propitious moment for its execution even if their paths had crossed, 
 which it seems hard to believe they did. At one other date it would have been possible for St. 
 Memin to have secured Burr's likeness, for Burr arrived in Paris, February 16, 1810, and he 
 resided in France during the ensuing year and St. Memin was in France from 1810 to 1812. 
 
 The present whereabouts of this striking and vigorous likeness I do not know. A clumsy 
 copy of it was made by one who signed himself J. Gaddis. Concerning this copy Richard B. 
 Shephard, Esq., of Salt Lake City, Utah, wrote me, March 28, 1919: "The Shephard Book 
 Company, of which I am president, bought a work on Aaron Burr. I think it was Coghlan's 
 Confessions, at auction, either in New York or Boston; a 12 mo. volume, on the fly leaf of 
 which was a pencil portrait of Aaron Burr signed J. Gaddis. The book was sold to Princeton 
 University some years ago with the original portrait etched by Gaddis in it." 
 
 This St. Memin portrait, I mean the original, made approximately in 1805, conforms 
 singularly to Burr's uncomplimentary description of himself, written March 14, 1802, to 
 Theodosia: "A lady of rank and consequence who had a great curiosity to see the Vice Presi- 
 dent, after several plans and great trouble, at length was gratified, and she declared that he 
 was the very ugliest man she had ever seen in her life. His bald head, pale hatchet visage, and 
 harsh countenance, certainly verify the lady's conclusion. Your very ugly and affectionate 
 father, A. Burr." 
 
 i 21 } 
 
The 1802 Vanderlyn Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Colonel Burr 
 
 T WAS when he had attained a degree of excellence, and in 1802, that Vander- 
 lyn painted the portraits of Colonel Burr and his daughter Theodosia, por- 
 traits admirable alike in composition and execution and by which their features 
 are best known. The 1802 portrait of Colonel Burr is now in my possession and 
 was the particular means of interesting me in the pictorial history of the Burrs. 
 Away back in November, 1881, 1 saw it through the window of a slowly jogging Third Avenue 
 horse car, in the shop of Fullerton, a dealer in curios, antiques and jewelry. Fullerton was a 
 character, shrewd, shifty, humorous and a bit unscrupulous. There was nothing he could not 
 land either in goods or people. With the portrait was displayed a large blue china platter. I 
 bought them both and the receipt read : This Portrait by Vanderlyn of Aaron Burr and Blue 
 Platter sold this 24th day of November, 1881, was among the effects of said Aaron Burr when 
 they were seized by Anthony Bowrowson who had obtained a judgment for debt against the 
 said Burr since which time they have been in the family of Anthony Bowrowson. 
 
 H. Van Meerbeek [Meerbeck] 
 Mr. Fullerton was simply a consignee; Mr. Van Meerbeck was the consignor and owner. He 
 was shy and I never met him, but by letter he informed me that his family had other portraits 
 of the Burrs. This I was inclined to doubt. He was a young man and had had perhaps the 
 tradition of earlier Bowrowson ownership, but there is no escape from the fact that he, a de- 
 scendant of Anthony Bowrowson (through his daughter Theodosia Shelburg, through her 
 daughter Mrs. Kennedy, through her daughter Mrs. Van Meerbeck,) had as well some of 
 Burr's household effects. Judge Ogden Edwards got some of the paintings and personal effects 
 from Mrs. Shelburg, but she evidently retained, or more likely had distributed, others that she 
 told him nothing of. Young Van Meerbeck claimed that his family still owned the only por- 
 trait of Theodosia then extant, and we know that from Mrs. Shelburg descended the watch, 
 with miniature portraits of Burr's first wife and daughter painted on the dial, to its present 
 owner, Mr. E. D. Hill, of Atlantic Avenue, Keyport, New Jersey. Collectively such facts will 
 not permit of any flat contradiction of Mr. Van Meerbeck's statements, but any further eluci- 
 dation of them, because of the great lapse of time, seems now unlikely. (See chapters on the 
 Bowrowsons and The Burr Watches.) 
 
 Vanderlyn's portrait of Colonel Burr, painted in 1802, is so well known that it only calls 
 for a limited description. It is painted on a canvas, 17 inches by 22^ inches, and represents 
 Burr in profile, at the age of forty-six years. His hair is drawn back from a high and prominent 
 forehead, is dusted white, and terminates in a queue. His face is well modelled; his nose thin 
 and sharp, his upper Hp finely cut, his chin somewhat heavy. The tip of a soft collar appears 
 
 { 22 > 
 
Aaron Burr 
 
 1802 
 
 Dr. John E. Stillwell 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
over a heavy neck kerchief. The flesh tones are florid and the paint is thin, showing the twill 
 of the canvas. Behind and beneath his ear, lying upon his neck, are some loose curving hairs. 
 
 This portrait of Colonel Burr was finely engraved by G. Parker, as a frontispiece to vol- 
 ume one of the Memoirs of Aaron Burr, published by Matthew L. Davis in 1836, and again 
 used by him in volume one of The Private Journal of Aaron Burr, edited in 1856. 
 
 This portrait was again engraved by H. Wright Smith as a frontispiece to The Life And 
 Times Of Aaron Burr by J. Parton, N. Y., 1858, but it lacks the vigor and accuracy of Parker's 
 engraving. 
 
 Since 1836 it has been the common and very popular reproduction of Colonel Burr's 
 features. 
 
 How the 1802 paintings by Vanderlyn of Burr and his daughter, Theodosia, were ob- 
 tained, in 1836, for the engraver, G. Parker, I do not know. Hip Burr says they were borrowed 
 by Davis. The inimical Bowrowsons then had the Colonel's portrait and the inference is that 
 they were made from a now unlocated replica. 
 
 i 23 > 
 
The Gridley Engraving 
 
 Of 
 
 Colonel Burr 
 
 mm 
 
 NOCH G. GRIDLEY was an engraver in both stipple and line doing business 
 in New York from 1803 to 1805. The latest date on any of his plates noted was 
 1818. Stauffers American Engravers, Vol. 1, p. 111. 
 
 In May, 1925, Robert Fridenberg, the prominent New York dealer in en- 
 gravings, presented me with what, at first sight, purported to be an engraving 
 of Aaron Burr, but which, upon close examination, he discovered was a fine mechanical re- 
 production. It was apparently an illustration taken from a sales catalogue and bore, pasted 
 beneath it, the following printed descriptive text: A. BURR ESQ. Full bust in profile to right. 
 Oval. Stipple. E. Gridley sc. Size 4x2 15/16. Excessively rare. See facsimile. What became of 
 the original engraving Mr. Fridenberg could not learn. The reproduction was excellent but 
 the original engraving was mediocre and it was unquestionably a copy with slight variations, 
 a variant, if you please, of the 1802 portrait of Aaron Burr by Vanderlyn. 
 
 { 24 } 
 
1 
 
 Aaron Burr E. Gridley 
 
 Engraving 
 
Aaron Burr 
 
 1802-1804 
 Mr. Walter Jennings 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
The 1802-4 Vanderlyn Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Colonel Burr 
 
 N THE possession of Mr. Walter Jennings, of New York City, there is a por- 
 trait of Colonel Burr painted by Vanderlyn which represents him at chest 
 length and nearly full face. It was bought from Miss Laura Jay Edwards, of 
 Millbrook, Duchess County, New York, in April, 1919, and was one of those 
 rescued by her grandfather, Judge Ogden Edwards, from the Bowrowsons, as 
 I have set forth in the history of the portrait of Theodosia by Gilbert Stuart, of which it was 
 the companion for many years. From the Summer of 1883, when I first saw it hanging upon 
 the walls of the Edwards' home, in Stratford, Connecticut, until the date of its sale, I had 
 quietly kept in touch with it and my regret was keen when it escaped me and passed to others. 
 From little less than attic room possessions of small worth when I sought them and valued at 
 a few hundred dollars, these two portraits rose, at my bidding and the mediation of the Amer- 
 ican Art Rooms, and the expert endorsement of the Ehrichs, to high figures, and then became 
 the property of the Jennings. Miss Edwards was well within her rights to sell to the highest 
 qidder, however cavalierly I may have thought myself treated, and there is ground for con- 
 gratulation that the paintings have passed from her custody to more appreciative owners. 
 There is no documentary evidence concerning the origin of this painting, but I conjecture it 
 was among Vanderlyn's relatively early efforts. Studying it, as I am doing, from a very poor 
 photograph which I had made in 1883, when it was in possession of its Stratford owners, there 
 seems much stiffness and formality about the pose, and little plasticity of feature. Comparing 
 it with the Stuart portrait of Colonel Burr, one realizes that they interchangeably sustain each 
 other, with added grace and skill in limning being perceptible in the older artist's work, and 
 the added age of the subject being apparent in the younger artist's work. This presentation of 
 Burr's features is valuable as he is commonly delineated in profile. Here the body squarely 
 faces the spectator while the head is rotated slightly over the right shoulder. His forehead is 
 high and massive, and his white dusted hair is drawn loosely back and connects on the side 
 with small whiskers. His eyes are painted characteristically piercing brown-black. His nose is 
 well modelled, short and straight, leaving a rather long upper Hp, with a homely and irreso- 
 lute mouth and a large, strong chin. A massive white kerchief, with two projecting collar tips, 
 covers a large portion of his chest. There is a poor reproduction of this painting in The Satur- 
 day Evening Post of Sept. 6, 1924, used to illustrate Mr. Meade Minnigerode's article on 
 Theodosia Burr, Prodigy. 
 
 In the chapter upon Burr's Watches there is an allusion, under date of Jan. 15, 1811, to 
 the possibility of Gamp having a portrait enamelled upon a watch. As Burr used Gamp as a 
 name for himself, as well as for his grandson, I am in doubt to whom it refers. In either case it 
 
 < 25 > 
 
implies the existence of a portrait, and I opine that it must be the grandfather's and not the 
 grandchild's, for had it have been the latter Burr must surely have made some allusion to its 
 existence in his diary. It would hardly be reasonable to think that Burr, in his hurried depar- 
 ture from America, would burden himself with his own painted visage, hence there is a strong 
 likelihood, despite his failure to mention any sittings, that he was painted abroad, most likely 
 by Vanderlyn. For some time I thought it barely possible that the portrait of Gamp referred 
 to, was the Jennings' portrait, but the tradition that the Jennings' portrait came from the 
 Bowrowsons quickly refutes such reasoning, and the deduction is warrantable that the Jen- 
 nings' portrait was painted by Vanderlyn shortly after the 1802 profile portrait of Colonel 
 Burr was finished. This leaves us in doubt just what portrait of himself Burr referred to in his 
 entry of Jan. 15, 1811. 
 
 { 26 } 
 
Aaron Burr 1809 John Vanderlyn 
 
 New York Historical Society 
 
The 1809 Vanderlyn Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Colonel Burr 
 
 VARIANT of the 1802 painting, in cabinet size, is owned by the New York 
 Historical Society. Burr is practically alike in both pictures save there is a 
 stronger naso-labial line in the face of the smaller painting, a more tightly 
 painted neck kerchief, an architectural background, and the loose hair upon 
 his neck is wanting. There is a baffling difference, however, in the execution of 
 the two paintings. In the larger work, it has been already stated, the paint is thinly laid, while 
 in the smaller painting it thickly and evenly coats the panel. Its fine crackle confirms its age, 
 but the method of its execution is so unlike, that, despite the fact that both paintings are 
 practically duplicates of the same man, at the same age, their execution must have been some 
 years apart. The only solution of this is that one is a copy, with variations of the other, by the 
 artist himself. In discussing the Vandyck portrait mention is made of the endorsement it re- 
 ceived from Colonel Burr, in which he states it is the best portrait of himself painted since 
 1809. The 1809 portrait he refers to I believe is the Vanderlyn cabinet picture, in the posses- 
 sion of the New York Historical Society. This would be an interval of seven years, during a 
 portion of which Vanderlyn had studied abroad, and naturally his technic would have 
 changed. Burr, in 1809, was not accessible to Vanderlyn and no portrait of Burr could have 
 been made by this artist unless he copied his own work of 1802. If read in conjunction with the 
 chapter on the Vandyck portrait, this attribution, and the date of the Historical Society's 
 painting, receive additional confirmation. The small cabinet painting was presented to the 
 New York Historical Society, June 7, 1859. It was bought from James H. Shegogue, for $90., 
 which was raised by subscription from the following donors: E. C. Benedict, $10., A. M. Coz- 
 zens, $10., Henry T. Drowne $5., Benjamin H. Field $10., George Folsom $10., J. Harsen $5., 
 William Menzies $10., J. H. Shegogue $10., R. Winthrop $10., and George H. Moore $10. 
 Shegogue himself, a New York artist, subscribed $10. Its history prior to his ownership is 
 simple. It was among the Colonel's effects left in the custody of Aaron Columbus Burr. Hip- 
 poly te Burr copied this painting while it was in his father's possession and his copy I have just 
 seen (Sept. 23, 1923), in the possession of Miss Evelyn Benedict, of 45 Pinckney Street, Bos- 
 ton, Mass. Apr. 21, 1902, Robert D. Benedict, Esquire, of New York, wrote Mr. Pidgin that 
 he had for sale a portrait of Aaron Burr, about 12 inches square, by an unknown artist, "but 
 the likeness is a good one." It was given to Henry J. Raymond, founder of the New York 
 Times, by a man who claimed to be an illegitimate son of Colonel Burr. The picture was not 
 sold, and Miss Benedict says it was then given by her aunt Mrs. Raymond to her father, 
 Robert D. Benedict, and from him it passed to her. The original portrait must have passed 
 from Aaron Columbus Burr to Shegogue. 
 
 i 27 } 
 
The margin of safety for the deduction of Vanderlyn's presence in America in 1809, I 
 realize is small. Dunlap fails to state it, and if it were an omission, Vanderlyn could have cor- 
 rected it, if he so wished, for the History of the Arts of Design was yet unprinted. Vanderlyn 
 had returned to Europe early in 1810, for Burr notes in his diary, Feb. 23, 1810, that the 
 American, Capt. Hadley, "told me Vanderlyn is in Paris and hunting for me. I thought him in 
 Rome." Burr soon caught up with him, for three days later he notes his arrival in Paris and a 
 call upon Vanderlyn. Should it so happen that Vanderlyn's residence, in 1809, is proven to be 
 in Europe, and not in the States, this hypothesis falls to the ground and the resultant confu- 
 sion must be removed by further investigation. I have even tried to admit the possibility of 
 the 1809 portrait being an unlocated portrait by the artist Breda, but Burr says that Breda's 
 portraits are very highly colored, and while I know none for comparison, I find the internal 
 evidence, the diary and the want of tradition are all against it. 
 
 The 1809 portrait of Colonel Burr appears in an article by William B. McCormick, in the 
 International Studio, called: A Backwater Oj American Art. Portraits of the New York Histori- 
 cal Society. Also in E. J. Edwards' magazine article Tammany. 
 
 i 28 } 
 
Aaron Burr 
 
 Dr. John E. Slillwell 
 
 Henry Inman 
 
The Inman Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Colonel Burr 
 
 wmrm 
 
 j AM impelled to call the remarkably fine water color miniature of Colonel Burr, 
 in my possession, the work of Henry Inman, not because of certitude but be- 
 cause it needs an author and because it was so called when it passed to me, 
 Oct. 1, 1885. I well recall, however, the halting, stumbling way in which its 
 owner, Hip Burr made this attribution and the doubt of its correctness then 
 implanted in my mind still abides with me. Judged by the lines in his face and the whiteness 
 of his hair, Col. Burr may have reached the age of seventy years, which would make the date 
 of the production of the miniature be about 1826, and Henry Inman, the artist, about twenty- 
 four or twenty-five years of age. Inman was born in Utica, New York, Oct. 28, 1801, studied 
 under J. W. Jarvis, in New York, became prominent as a portraitist, settled in Philadelphia 
 about 1832, visited Europe about 1845, and painted a number of English celebrities, returned 
 to this country, lived in New York where he died, at the age of forty-four, Jan. 17, 1846. These 
 movements rather confirm than disprove the likelihood of the attribution to Inman. It origi- 
 nally was enclosed in a fine morocco case and the history was that it came to Aaron Columbus 
 Burr as an heirloom. My interpretation of this is that it was another one of the pieces left in 
 the custody of Aaron Columbus Burr. Even though its attribution is not satisfactorily con- 
 firmed to me, it remains a work of great excellence. 
 
 The miniature is painted on a heavy white paper 4}/£ inches by 3% inches in size. The 
 background is shaded black and white. Col. Burr is portrayed at nearly half-length, the right 
 side of his body slightly rotated forward, and his face nearly full. He wears a fight blue coat 
 with a heavy roll, a vest of similar material and a soft white collar with kerchief. His forehead 
 is high and massive, his head surmounted by a fair amount of white hair, his complexion pink 
 and white, his eyes a piercing dark brown and his face somewhat shortened by the settling of 
 his jaws. His expression is humorous and interrogative rather than intellectual. The workman- 
 ship is most satisfactory, being done with a free brush and certain stroke. 
 
 If Col. Burr were sixty-five years of age rather than seventy when this miniature was 
 painted, it would make Inman only nineteen or twenty years old, and so excellent a work 
 could hardly have emanated from such youthful and inexperienced hands. Burr's singularly 
 well preserved features and florid color gives so much latitude to deduction as to his age that 
 the authoriship of the miniature must be solely deduced from its technic, but he may have 
 easily been in his seventieth year and upwards. 
 
 Hippolyte Burr made a copy of this painting in oil, but it was so poor that I bought it and 
 destroyed it. And it is just as well to repeat here that which is set forth elsewhere in these 
 articles, that Hip Burr accurately copied with a tight brush on a large scale, the small Van- 
 dyck painting and that both of these, original and copy, are in my possession (1926); and 
 further that he copied the small Vanderlyn portrait owned by the New York Historical Society 
 which copy is now owned by Miss Benedict, of Boston, Mass. 
 
 { 29 } 
 
The Vandyck Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Colonel Burr 
 
 OLONEL BURR was about seventy-eight years of age when he went to reside 
 with his son, Aaron Columbus Burr, at the corner of the Bowery and Grand 
 Street, New York City. A few blocks away there dwelt a miniature painter by 
 the name of James Vandyck. He was one of the painstaking, conscientious lim- 
 ners, working in New York in the middle of the 19th century, who seldom at- 
 tained great distinction. Aside from his portrait of Colonel Burr, I have seen nothing from his 
 brush. Judged by this work he was a correct draftsman, a rather brilliant colorist and a hard 
 technician. Theodore Bolton (Early American Portrait Painters In Miniature) says that he 
 flourished between 1806 and 1835, and that in The Polyanthus for June, 1806, there appears an 
 engraving by S. Harris after Vandyck's portrait of John Winthrop, and suggests that possibly 
 the Vandyck who painted the Winthrop painting was identical with James Vandyck who 
 flourished between 1806 and 1835, and was the same James Vandyck who painted the portrait 
 of James Lyon (owned in 1928) by Luke Vincent Lockwood, Esquire, of New York City. This 
 painting is signed on the right hand side J. Vandyck. 
 
 References to Vandyck, in the New York City directories are limited to the year 1834-5, 
 when his residence is given as 62 Forsyth Street, and to the year 1836, when his residence is 
 given as 48 Vesey Street. Neither before nor after these dates does his name appear, and from 
 the apparent shortness of his stay, it might be a just surmise that, his sitter being a Winthrop, 
 he came from New England. Vandyck had another residence or studio not mentioned in the 
 city directories. This appears as part of an inscription, pasted upon the back of Col. Burr's 
 portrait, and is named as 18 Centre Street, Room N°. 3. 
 
 The Vandyck portrait came into my (Dr. John E. Stillwell) possession, Oct. 2, 1919, by 
 purchase from Henry Alloway, Esq., of Goshen, N. Y., a collector of Burr material, with the 
 statement that he had "obtained it from a dispersion of the belongings of the artist Falconer" 
 — nothing more. The gap between Falconer's ownership and the origin of the painting may be 
 partially filled. The corner of the Bowery and Broome Street is but a stone's tlirow from For- 
 syth Street, and doubtless artist and sitter were known to each other. That the recently ar- 
 rived artist Vandyck volunteered his services is likely, for Burr had just separated from his 
 wife, was probably shy of funds and had little or no occasion to wish a portrait of himself 
 painted, though probably not averse to it. Upon the back of the painting is pasted a rapidly 
 fading written inscription, which will soon totally disappear, which recites as follows : Aaron 
 Burr, painted in 1834, in six sittings by James van Dyck. If not satisfactory, return to 18 
 Centre St. Room N°. 3. And apart from this in two distinct places: Arnold, and: 20. They 
 may have no relation to each other though the number suggests an auction mark. The phrase- 
 
 { 30 > 
 
Aaron Burr 
 
 Dr. John E. Slillwell 
 
 James Vandyck 
 
ology "If not satisfactory return to 18 Centre St.", bears out the suggestion that the portrait 
 was a venture of the artist's rather than an order of Burr's. It apparently proved satisfactory 
 to Burr and it is probable that he bought it, and that it passed with his other effects to Aaron 
 Columbus Burr after his father's death. A large facsimile of this painting in oil, 26 inches by 
 31 inches, was owned by Aaron Columbus Burr in 1882. Its existence was known in the fam- 
 ily, but its location was not. After several hunts it was exhumed from the cellar, dust covered 
 and punctured, and bought by me. It was then represented by the unreliable Hip Burr as the 
 original Vandyck painting, which I believed for many years and only detected my error when 
 I found the Alloway painting. The self satisfied artist Vandyck, said Hip Burr, asked the Colo- 
 nel what he thought of it, to which Burr replied "Well Sir if you have been trying to paint a 
 blacksmith you have made a success of it." It is not conceivable that the urbane Col. Burr 
 could have uttered so rude a remark, and we have Burr's own high valuation of it: Southern 
 District of New York. I certify that the Portrait by Vandyke is the best Likeness ever Painted of 
 me since 1809. N. York 1 st Jan y 1834. A. Burr. This attestation was printed beneath a litho- 
 graphic copy of the Vandyck portrait, now very rare, which proves a very accurate reproduc- 
 tion though a trifle larger than the original painting being 113^ inches by 9% inches. 
 
 The fertile Hip Burr again was in evidence when he informed me that his father, Aaron 
 Columbus Burr, had had this lithograph made in anticipation of Col. Burr's death, and that 
 the day it was announced, the engraving was hawked about the streets by hue and cry; that 
 few were sold and that the stone and many of the prints still existed somewhere among the 
 family. This story too is hardly believable even if it were conformable to the facts. It is much 
 easier to believe that Aaron Columbus Burr and his family did not originally own the small 
 Vandyck painting and that the Colonel gave the attestation to the artist upon request, who, 
 at an unknown date, but probably shortly following Burr's death, had it lithographed for sale, 
 and that the Aaron Columbus Burr family acquired it only in later years. 
 
 One thing militates against all these statements and deductions. Burr sat for no portrait 
 in 1809. No such event could have escaped being noted in his diary. During his travels, in 
 1809, he only came in contact with one artist, the Swedish painter Breda. Early in 1808, Burr 
 was in hiding preparatory to sailing to England; he arrived in London, July 16, 1808, and left 
 for a trip in Scotland, Dec. 22, 1808; February, 1809, he was back in London, where, Apr. 4, 
 1809, he became practically a prisoner of state, because of his presence creating possible polit- 
 ical complications with the United States; he was then asked to remove himself, which he did, 
 going to Sweden, thence to Germany, Oct. 21, 1809, and to Paris, Feb. 16, 1810. This covers 
 the year 1809 very thoroughly and we are left to select the alternatives of a defective memory 
 on Burr's part, or a forged attestation to the lithograph. 
 
 There is one escape from this dilemma which would, if accepted, quash at once the sug- 
 gestions of defect in memory and fraudulent attestation. In 1809 Burr was in Europe, and 
 treated as a persona non grata. We know from his diary his every movement and that he had 
 practically no opportunity to sit for a portrait. Vanderlyn was not with him and no mention is 
 made of this artist's whereabouts in 1809. 1 believe, in the face of no evidence to the contrary, 
 that Vanderlyn was in the United States in 1809. Burr could not sit for him, but no doubt 
 Vanderlyn had access to the portrait of Burr that he had painted in the winter of 1802, and 
 
 < 31 } 
 
this, copied in cabinet size with variations, is, in my modest opinion, the one that Burr refers 
 to in his attestation on the lithograph of the small Vandyck portrait, as the 1809 portrait and 
 is the one which is now owned by the New York Historical Society, and correctly called the 
 work of Vanderlyn. In the chapter devoted to Vanderlyn, this subject is further treated. 
 
 Of the origin of the large Vandyck portrait, which I bought, Nov. 6, 1882, from Hip Burr, 
 there is little doubt. It is, in my estimation, a copy by Hippolyte Burr of the smaller work. 
 Certainly he who painted the big portrait had access to the small one. Its identical color 
 scheme and the details of its drawing, even to the small finger ring, prove this; and its very 
 tightness is what one would expect in a copy when a painter attempts to reproduce a small 
 work on a large scale. Hip Burr was no mean artist himself, and though he was not more than 
 four or five years of age when Colonel Burr died, this does not exclude him as the copyist. 
 That the large painting was copied from the lithograph I cannot conceive, for it follows more 
 closely the small Vandyck painting than the engraving. By whose ever hand the large painting 
 may be it is a mediocre work, though perhaps a good likeness. On the other hand the small 
 Vandyck portrait of Colonel Burr possesses genuine merit and no doubt was an excellent like- 
 ness. It is painted upon a pine (oak?) panel 9% inches by 7% inches. Burr is seated in a ma- 
 hogany arm chair upholstered in red. He is shown at knee-length with his arms folded, full 
 face, body slightly rotated. He wears a blue coat with brown lapels and cuffs and a black vest 
 and a rolled, two button white collar. His complexion is fresh, pink and white, his hair gray 
 and diminished, and atop his head he wears his spectacles, the same glasses that Mrs. Stephens, 
 the authoress, so touchingly alludes to in her letter which follows. 
 
 St Cloud Hotel, June 16, 1876. 
 
 My dear Sir: — 
 
 In response to your suggestion from our mutual and good friend Mr. E. N. Dickerson — 
 who is only perfectly happy when he is contributing to the happiness of others — I take plea- 
 ure in sending you the glasses that Aaron Burr used at the time of his death. During his last 
 illness he was the honored guest of an English lady of high birth — who was then or afterwards 
 became Mrs. Joshua Webb. She was the daughter of a gentleman who had known and greatly 
 befriended Burr during his stay in Europe. In this country she revived the old friendship and 
 carried it out faithfully to the end. When most in need of womanly kindness and care he was 
 removed to her house and received from her all the attention a daughter could have bestowed. 
 Being herself a woman of great ability and most generous heart, she would appreciate his true 
 character and feel, with keenness, the injustice done to it. Every paper that Burr possessed 
 went through this lady's hands and was submitted to Judge Edwards, before it was used or 
 destroyed. And she affirmed, most solemnly to me, that there was not a letter or a fine com- 
 promising any one in the whole collection. A week or two before his death Burr went to Staten 
 Island, hoping to benefit by change of air, but was never able to return to his rooms in New 
 York. When he was dying these glasses lay on a table close to his bed. Reaching out his hand, 
 he touched them saying feebly "Give these to the Madam!" I think these were the last words 
 Burr ever spoke. Certainly the glasses were the last object he ever touched. After his death 
 Judge Edwards delivered them to Mrs. Webb who kept them sacredly until her own death, 
 
 { 32 > 
 
when she gave them to me, exactly as they came from Burr's own hand. Since then, though I 
 never knew this remarkable man personally, I have kept the glasses with great care, allowing 
 no one to touch them and, but for the effect of time on the silver, they are, even to an attempt 
 at mending, which he had made, exactly as he last wore them. Knowing that I may give some 
 pleasure to the best friend I have — and feeling that you, as a relative of the dead statesman 
 will prize an object so completely associated with his person, I have great satisfaction in ask- 
 ing your acceptance of the relic. 
 
 Very Respectfully 
 
 Ann S. Stephens. 
 
 Henry A. Burr, Esq., New York. 
 
 The lithograph of the Vandyck painting is reproduced satisfactorily in The Magazine of 
 American History, November, 1884. 
 
 Edward Dexter, son and successor of the old New York print seller, Elias Dexter, had the 
 head and torso of the lithograph engraved by E. G. Williams & Brother, New York, about 
 1880. In this form it illustrates Edgar Fawcett's A Romantic Wrong Doer, in the Cosmopolitan 
 for October, 1897. 
 
 Henry Austin's magazine article on Famous Duels also uses it. 
 
 In The Boss and The Machine (Yale Alumni Association Publishing Co.) is a gravure by 
 Andarsen Lamb, L'd., New York, inscribed "Pen drawing after a painting by J. Vandyke, in 
 the possession of the late E. A. Duyckinck." The drawing is an execrable copy of the engraving 
 made for Edward Dexter and succeeds in making Burr look like an idiot. 
 
 i 33 } 
 
Casts And Busts 
 
 The Turnerelli Marble Bust 
 
 m 
 
 N THE Winter of 1883, now some forty-five years ago, I inserted in the English 
 magazine, Notes $ Queries, a request for information concerning the sculptor 
 Turnerelli and the bust that he made of Aaron Burr in 1808. A correspondent, 
 Mr. James Dixon, of Dorking, Surrey, wrote saying that he knew nothing of 
 the bust, but supplied the following information: 
 "Turnerelli, Peter, sculptor, was born at the latter end of 1774, at Belfast. His father was 
 an Italian modeller, and resided many years in Dublin ; his mother was a native of that city. 
 He was intended for the priesthood, but a love of art prevailed. He came to London at the age 
 of 18, was placed with M. Chesne, an able artist, and admitted a student of the Royal Aca- 
 demy. His works early attracted notice and employment. He was engaged to teach the Prin- 
 cess of Wales, and also many of the nobility, modelling in wax, and he exhibited the infant 
 Princess Charlotte in wax, which was much admired. In 1810, George the 3rd sat to him for 
 his bust, and the work was so popular that he made no less than eighty copies of it in marble. 
 He was appointed sculptor to the Queen and also to the Princess of Wales. Some of the most 
 distinguished men of the day were his sitters, and in 1813, when he visited the continent, 
 Louis 18th sat to him for his bust. He executed several monumental works; Sir John Moore, 
 in Canterbury Cathedral, Admiral Sir John Hope, in Westminster Abbey ; and Burns at his 
 plough, for the Dumfries monument. He died after a few hour's illness, in Newman Street, 
 March 20th, 1839, leaving a wife and family in great destitution. He had the reputation of 
 being a charming amateur singer." Redgrave's Dictionary Of Artists Of The English School. 
 8 vo. London, 1878. 
 
 Burr moved with the procession of notables wending its way to the popular sculptor's 
 studio. The venerable sage and philosopher, Jeremy Bentham had sat to him for his bust and 
 Burr sought a copy of it from the sculptor: 
 
 Sept. 2, 1808, in a letter written to his friend Bentham, he says: "Turnerelli refuses to 
 give or sell me a bust without your order. Will you be pleased to send me such order for one or 
 two, as he may agree . . . One I must have for your little friend and admirer, Theodosia." 
 Burr thereupon secured the bust. It was boxed and sent by the Hopewell, a vessel sailing be- 
 tween England and the United States, which was seized, however, by the French. "It is con- 
 jectured here that the box in question contained the bust. This is melancholy, but might it 
 not be practicable by a letter to Talleyrand to procure, if not the restoration of the box, at 
 least the safe keeping of the contents." 
 
 With the thought of his daughter Theodosia ever uppermost in his mind, Burr decided to 
 have himself sculped, and entered in his Diary a number of references to his amusing, even if 
 somewhat distressing experiences in that procedure. 
 
 Nov. 23, 1808. "When returning home, called at Turnerelli's, the statuary, and engaged 
 to give him a sitting tomorrow." 
 
 i 34 } 
 
Nov. 24. "Went to Turnerelli's. He would have a mask. I consented, because Bentham et 
 others had. A very unpleasant ceremony" . . . "Just as we were going out, casting my eyes in 
 the mirror, I observed a great purple mark on my nose. Went up and washed it, rubbed it — 
 all to no purpose. It was indelible. That cursed mask business has occasioned it. I believe the 
 fellow used quick lime instead of plaster of Paris, for I felt a very unpleasant degree of heat 
 during the operation. I sent Sir Mark [Sir Mark A. Gerard] off, resolved to see no signora [a 
 Corsican lady, widow of a British officer] till the proboscis be in order." 
 
 25 Nov. "Nose the same. At eleven went to Turnerelli's to sit. Relieved myself by abusing 
 him for the nose disaster. He bore it like one conscious, and endeavoured to console me by 
 stating that the same tiling happened to Lord Melville, and to several others, and that the 
 appearance passed off in a few days. Took a hack, not liking to walk and exhibit my nose. 
 Stayed two hours with Turnerelli. He will make a most hideous, frightful thing, but much 
 like the original. After leaving T., being unfit for any reasonable thing, rode to Madam O's to 
 apprize her," etc. 
 
 27. "From Reeves' walked on to visit the donna; but recollecting my nose, walked home." 
 
 28. "Nose a little improved . . . Waited till one for Tom's return, and then went to T. Sat 
 one hr. Worse and worse. This was meant to please you; but if I had suspected that I had 
 become so ugly, I would sooner have ." 
 
 Dec. 1, 1808. Lond. "To Turnerelli's — abroad. I am glad of it; for I would give five 
 guineas that the thing were demolished." 
 
 2. "To T's who had been to hunt me. Sat only twenty minutes. He is determined to go 
 through with it. Tries to encourage me. Finds it wonderfully like Voltaire; but all won't do. 
 It is a horrid piece of deformity." 
 
 5 Dec. '08. . . . "to Turnerelli's, where sat an hour." 
 
 7. "To Turnerelli's — not at home. Shall never be done with that fellow, and yet he tries 
 his best; but the strange irregularities and deformities of the face defies all art." 
 
 Saturday 10. "To Turnerelli's at two. I wish I never had begun with him." 
 
 Laurence Hutton, in his work on Death-Masks, incidentally alludes to this work of Tur- 
 nerelli's, and says it was exhibited at the Royal Academy, in 1809, and in a personal com- 
 munication to me, Nov. 4, 1892, states "I have never been able to find the bust of Aaron Burr 
 by Turnerelli, nor any trace of it, I am sorry to say." 
 
 March 25, 1812, Burr entered in his Diary "Also a note to Koe about Natalie's picture, 
 which I had for three years past supposed to be finally lost, but which I found in his bed- 
 chamber a few days ago. Directed him to send it to W. Graves, who will send it to me, with 
 other things." The bust may have been forwarded "with the other things," but forty years of 
 desultory searching upon my part has failed to bring it to light. Still much less likely is there a 
 possibility of the original Turnerelli mask being extant. With the bust finished, this would 
 probably have gone into the discard. 
 
 < 35 } 
 
The Fowler And Wells Bust 
 
 URR'S numerous earthly migrations ceased at Port Richmond, Staten Island 
 Here he peacefully died Sept. 14, 1836. He had ^withdrawn thither from New 
 York to the quiet of a small country hotel hoping to benefit his health, as well 
 as to receive the ministrations of his loyal kinsman, Judge Ogden Edwards, 
 whose attractive residence still stands at West Brighton, occupied by Arthur 
 A. Michell, Esq. Some years ago an account of an interview with Mr. O. W. Buell, of Port 
 Richmond, who prepared Burr's remains for the undertaker, appeared in the columns of the 
 New York Sun. Mr. Buell was along in years, but his memory of persons and events was dis- 
 tinctly good and his narrative entertaining: "A mysterious stranger, who fairly haunted the 
 house and made interested inquiries during Col. Burr's last illness, without being admitted to 
 his presence, finally turned out to be neither relative, friend nor acquaintance, though until 
 then supposed to be one or the other . . ." "He was a good-looking, non committal young man, 
 with a carpet bag, who began to come down here regularly by the last boat every day for a 
 fortnight or so preceding Aaron Burr's death. But the mystery all came out shortly after Col. 
 Burr's death. I was hired to lay out the body, as I have told you. It was well on into the even- 
 ing and I had just finished my task, when there was a knock at the door. I opened it, and who 
 do you suppose was there? The mysterious stranger, carpet-bag and all, with a business-like 
 air and a satisfied grin on his face. He cast a single glance on the dead man's face, sat down and 
 opened his carpet-bag, exposing its contents, appropriated the wash bowl and water pitcher 
 and set to work in a nimble, matter-of-fact way, and without asking leave of anybody. The 
 secret of his long and patient perseverence was then manifest. He was an artist and had been 
 waiting all those days and nights for just the opportunity that was his at last — the propitious 
 hour directly after death, when a perfect plaster-of-Paris cast of the head and features could 
 be taken before the symptoms of decay made themselves visible." The so-called artist had 
 been employed at a cost of $50., by the then recently established firm of phrenologists, Fowler 
 and Wells, of New York. These followers of Gall and Spurzheim described the cast as a face 
 shortened by the loss of teeth and the head marked by excessive amativeness, destructiveness, 
 combativeness, firmness and large self esteem. Poor old man ! How the beauty of youth and 
 the strength of manhood had deserted him! How his disfigured, battered features were cruelly 
 analyzed long after these attributed qualities had long been lost! Mr. Buell said that Burr had 
 "a somewhat hatchet face, whose dignity was slightly marred by a thin aquiline nose, having 
 a decided twist or bend to one side, either through some accident or by natural malformation." 
 Though his portraitists ignored the fact, there is no doubt that the lower half of his nose was 
 out of plumb. Burr himself recognized the fact when he alluded to the strange irregularities 
 and deformities of his face which defied all the art of the sculptor Turnerelli to make his cast 
 in 1808. And the writer in The Port Folio, under date of Aug. 30, 1805, in his pen picture of 
 Burr, confirms this in his description — "his nose is nearly rectilinear, too slender between the 
 
 i 36 } 
 
eyes, rather inclined to the right side; gently elevated, which betrays a degree of haughtiness ; 
 too obtuse at the end for great acuteness of penetration, brilliancy of wit or poignancy of sa- 
 tire, and too small to sustain his ample and capacious forehead." 
 
 The Fowler and Wells cast without doubt shows this feature of Burr's face in a magnified 
 degree; the aged shrunken tissues, as well as death itself, would naturally intensify the ap- 
 pearance of this deformity. 
 
 This cast has been used by Fowler and Wells to illustrate their work, and also by Laur- 
 ence Hutton in his magazine article on A Collection Of Death Masks. 
 
 { 37 > 
 
The Jacques Jouvenal Bust 
 
 N THE construction of the extension of the Capitol and the completion of the 
 Senate Chamber and the Hall of the House of Representatives niches were 
 provided in the gallery floors of each of these rooms set apart for legislative 
 purposes, the idea being stated by Capt. M. C. Meigs, the constructor in 
 charge of the Capitol, that if niches were provided, works of art would be pro- 
 vided later to fill these vacant spaces." 
 
 In 1859, with this in mind, an Art Commission was created but its recommendation, for 
 paintings and sculpture, failing to receive the approval of Congress, was abolished in 1860. 
 Some time elapsed before another effort was made, but, January 27th, 1886, a resolution was 
 submitted to the Senate — That the Committee on the Library be directed to consider the 
 subject of placing busts of Vice Presidents ... in the vacant niches of the Senate Chamber 
 and its corridors. This was unanimously agreed to and February 4th, 1886, the Library Com- 
 mittee agreed that if this object could be accomplished by the use of the contingent fund of 
 the Senate it would introduce a favorable resolution. Four days later, February 8th, 1886, it 
 was "Resolved, That marble busts of those who have been Vice Presidents of the United 
 States shall be placed in the vacant niches of the Senate Chamber from time to time," etc. 
 Annual Report of the Architect Of The Capitol, 1928. 
 
 The work of providing Aaron Burr's bust, Vice President from March 4, 1801, to March 
 3, 1805, fell to Jacques Jouvenal, a sculptor "who for many years lived in Washington, and 
 died in that city on the 8th day of March, 1905. Mr. Jouvenal was of old Huguenot stock and 
 was born in Pinache, Germany, March 18, 1829. His parents were obliged to flee from the 
 south of France on account of religious principles. At the age of 16 he commenced his art 
 study under the instruction of Klammer, of Stuttgart, Germany. Emigrating to the United 
 States in 1853, he remained in New York until 1855, when he moved to Washington and com- 
 menced work on the capitals of the columns of the Capitol, where he was employed for five 
 years. His services terminated at the commencement of the War of the Rebellion. His first 
 work as a portrait sculptor was the bust of Von Steuben at the German Orphan Asylum. His 
 statue of Benjamin Franklin is at the intersection of Tenth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, 
 Washington, D. C." Art and Artists of the Capitol, by Charles E. Fairman, a well compiled and 
 interesting work. 
 
 As Aaron Burr was born in 1756 and died in 1836, and Jouvenal was born in 1829 and 
 died in 1905, the sculptor was but seven years old when the Vice President died, hence it fol- 
 lows that the bust was not a contemporary work but a much later creation, based upon a por- 
 trait which, by the exclusion of the Gilbert Stuart portrait as being too young, and the Van- 
 dyck portrait as being too old, must have been modelled from the only other full faced like- 
 ness known, that by Vanderlyn, then owned by the Edwards family and later purchased from 
 them, by Mr. Walter Jennings, of New York City. It is seldom that the medium, marble, lends 
 
 i 38 } 
 
Aaron Burr Marble Bust by Jacques Jouvenal 
 
 Capifol, Washington, D. C. 
 
itself to perfect portraiture. It is too hard, cold and unworkable, hence Jouvenal, the artist, 
 with his double handicap, has only given us a bust of pictorial value to serve as a commemora- 
 tive marker, but in no sense a genuine portrait. 
 
 { 39 } 
 
The Bronze Statuette 
 
 BOUT 1922, I was informed that a bronze statuette, representing Burr stand- 
 ing at full length, was on sale at the curio shop of Miss Jane Teller, 421 East 
 61st Street, New York City. When I reached there it had been sold some time 
 before and the buyer was unknown. It was represented as a few inches high 
 and may have conformed to others similar in size and shape of Burr's con- 
 temporaries. Of its origin and history nothing could be ascertained. It must be a rarity for I 
 have heard of none other. 
 
 { 40 > 
 
Burr's Watches 
 
 HE earliest known likeness of Theodosia Burr occurs on the dial of a medium 
 size silver watch, once owned by her father. This watch has the even greater 
 interest of having a companion portrait of her mother, Theodosia Bartow, the 
 widow of James Marc Prevost and wife of Col. Burr, which is, so far as I know, 
 the only likeness extant of Burr's first wife, also painted upon the dial. The 
 mother and the daughter are represented in profile, facing each other, the former at waist 
 length, the latter at knee length, and of necessity they are extremely small to be crowded into 
 such small compass and are further d imini shed by the ornamental design which separates 
 them. Mrs. Burr is clothed in a waist remarkable only for its large lapels and standing collar. 
 Her hair is black, curly and wiggy ; her eyes dark and nose straight. More definite analysis of 
 it is impossible. Theodosia is painted with mussy hair, a sheep face, a broomstick arm and an 
 expression belying any immediate or future intelligence. The mother and child bear a strong 
 resemblance to each other. Mrs. Burr was born in 1746, and was some ten years older than her 
 husband Col. Burr, whom she married in 1782. Theodosia was born in 1783, and the mother 
 died in 1794, so at the best Theodosia could not have been more than ten years old, and from 
 her likeness on the dial was more likely seven than ten. Applying these dates we may deduce 
 that the portraits of Mrs. Burr and her daughter were painted about 1790, when the mother 
 was about forty-four years old and the daughter about seven. The artist is unknown. On a 
 larger scale he might have been more competent; here he fails abjectly. Col. Burr probably 
 thought so too, for it was among the goods left behind and seized by the Bowrowsons. In the 
 chapter on that family the manner of their succession to Col. Burr's effects is disclosed. 
 
 This watch became the property of Anthony Bowrowson's daughter, Theodosia, who 
 married Mr. Shelburg. Their daughter, Harriet A. Shelburg, became the wife of David Hill, 
 of Hazlet, New Jersey, a widower with four children, one of whom, E. D. Hill, Esq., of Atlan- 
 tic Avenue, Key port, New Jersey, received this watch from his stepmother, Harriet A. Shel- 
 burg Hill, and had it in his possession when I saw it, July 14, 1923. Mr. Hill is a man in his 
 sixties. He states he has refused an offer of five hundred dollars for the watch. In 1882, in mid- 
 summer, I called upon Harriet A. Shelburg Hill, at Hazlet, but the visit was unproductive as 
 I then knew little of the Bowrowson history and she apparently knew less, or at least was 
 uncommunicative. 
 
 Perhaps there will be no better place than here to mention the other watches Burr pos- 
 sessed. For many years such articles had been pet jewels and playthings of the aristocrats. 
 Hundreds of them of exquisite shape, decoration and value have been transmitted and exist 
 today in collections possessed by private individuals and public institutions. Owning them 
 then was as much of a fad as collecting them now. Col. Burr succumbed to the prevailing 
 fashion. His diary teems with allusions to his watches: silver repeater, diamond watch, enam- 
 elled watch, picture watch, ring watch and others. The picture watch carried in miniature the 
 
 { 41 } 
 
portrait of Theodosia, painted by Vanderlyn in 1802, and it may correspond to his enamelled 
 watch. Burr even had in mind to have his own portrait enamelled upon a watch case which 
 was to replace his lost l'Epine. To quote from his diary: 
 
 July 8, 1811. "To Bonnetts, from whom I had a note this morning telling me he was sick. 
 We had a consultation about your watch which I perceive will ruin me and to enhance the 
 evil got another whim in my head which will add several louis to the cost, i. e. to enamel on 
 the other side the picture of ... " 
 
 July 9, 1811. "Took Vanderlyn in cabriolet to the enamellers to consult about wasting 
 more money. He agrees to assist me to his utmost in such laudable disposition. To Badolets to 
 get the case of your watch . . . Took cabriole to the enamellers to give him the watch case." 
 
 Burr was soon to be allowed to sail for America and to accomplish it he had to raise funds. 
 He enters under date of: 
 
 Sept. 12, 1811. "I have paid the Captain 480 guilders, which is equal to about 50 louis. 
 But how did I raise this? The reply contains a dreadful disclosure. I raised it by the sale of all 
 my little meubles and loose property. Among others, alas! my dear little Gamp's. It is shock- 
 ing to relate but what else could I do? The Captain said it was impossible to get out of town 
 without 500 guilders. He had tried every resource and was in despair. The money must be 
 raised or the voyage given up. So, after turning it over and looking at it, and opening it, and 
 putting it to my ear like a baby, and kissing it, and begging you a thousand pardons out loud, 
 your dear, little beautiful watch was — was sold. I do assure you — but you know how sorry I 
 was. If my clothes had been saleable, they would have gone first, that's sure. But heighho ! 
 when I get rich I will buy you a prettier one." 
 
 Burr set sail for Boston on the American ship Vigilant, but the very same day she was 
 captured and sent to Yarmouth. Burr found himself again in inhospitable England, and to 
 live had to part with more of his belongings. As early as Jan. 28, 1812, the divesture com- 
 menced, for he states: "The articles destined for pawn are your diamond watch and the pic- 
 ture watch; and for sale, my silver repeater," etc. 
 
 Feb. 29, 1812. "To Joyce's, watch maker, Lombard St., with whom had left your picture 
 watch to be regulated and to get a key ; half a guinea," etc. 
 
 Mch. 1, 1812, London. "On my way home tried to pawn the picture-watch, but the rascal 
 would only give £4. 
 
 Mch. 12, 1812. "Tried on my way home at several places to pawn your picture watch 
 which ought to be worth fifty guineas; but they would not give more than £3, which refused." 
 
 Mch. 23, 1812, London. "To Joyce's for the watches. I had expected with horror, an enor- 
 mous bill of three or four guineas. His bill is eight pounds twelve shillings ! I choked and was 
 petrified, but remonstrance and scolding would have been vain. Took the silver repeater, and 
 left your picture- watch till the bill should be paid, for I had only twenty shillings, and Graves 
 nothing. Much fear I shall not be able to redeem it." His fears were realized, for two days 
 later, Mch. 25, 1812, with permission from the government to sail, yet destitute of passage 
 money, desperate and humiliated, he was forced to borrow £20 from his friend Reeves, and 
 leave to Graves for the £15 he owed him, the picture-watch, which the good soul not only 
 consented to let remain, but promised to redeem . . . "which remains in the hands of those 
 
 { 42 > 
 
rascals, the Joyces; hope therefore at some future day you may see it. Left also with Graves 
 the ring-watch," and other goods to the amount of £25, as security for his advances. 
 
 That Col. Burr, the son and the grandson of distinguished Americans, and himself an 
 officer in the army of the American Revolution, an United States Senator, and a Vice Presi- 
 dent of the United States should have been reduced to such a humiliating position by the 
 machinations of his political foes, abetted by his government, is a great and heinous crime. 
 The shame of it is not his but his country's. He was always lavishly generous and never real- 
 ized the value of money, and repeated sad experiences failed to enlighten him. "This giving," 
 he writes, "is a very unprofitable business and I have twenty times determined to quit it, yet 
 am perpetually seduced into the perpetration thereof." 
 
 "My private debts are subject of some solicitude, but confidence in my own industry and 
 resources does not permit me to despond, nor even to doubt," etc. Upon others he spent much; 
 upon himself little, and as a political exile, there was no way that he could make a living from 
 the profession in which he had hitherto shone and in which he was yet to shine again. Oppres- 
 sion then, as now, seems to be the privilege of government. One marvels how a supposedly 
 moral nation can be guilty of immoral acts. Theft is none the less theft when perpetrated by a 
 nation, and it is not even competition when a government enters into kindred business with 
 its citizens; it then amounts to confiscation. Progress is irresistible, but it need not be mile- 
 stoned by injustices even if needed for the major good. No extenuation for the creation of the 
 postal service, the parcels post, the abolition of slavery, the prohibition of liquor, the confisca- 
 tory regulation of railroad rates, and numerous other rapidly multiplying ills can be justified 
 without adequate compensation to the owners of the long ago Pony Post, the Express Com- 
 panies, the slave owners, the liquor manufacturers and the railroads; and this has never been 
 made. You cannot be moral and oppressive at the same time; it is not tolerable that one class 
 should be oppressed that another should be benefitted. Such action, with steady invasion of 
 personal, even constitutional, liberty creates hostility so great that we may pause and give 
 heed. If Burr was a victim of such conditions in 1810, we are the greater victims in 1928. 
 
 { 43 > 
 
Theodosia Burr's Portrait 
 
 By 
 
 Gilbert Stuart 
 
 HE youthful Theodosia was painted by Stuart about 1794. No doubt the por- 
 trait was contemporary in execution with the portrait of her father by the 
 same artist, now owned by the New Jersey Historical Society, and which we 
 have just discussed. In the Summer of 1883, 1 was told of its existence and that 
 it was hanging on the walls of the Edwards' house in Stratford, Connecticut. I 
 journeyed there at once, saw it in juxtaposition to the full face portrait of Col. Burr by Van- 
 derlyn, now owned by Mr. Walter Jennings, of New York City, and arranged, with their per- 
 mission, to have both paintings photographed. The Misses Edwards had acquired these two 
 paintings from their father, Judge Ogden Edwards, who, it will be recalled, obtained most, if 
 not all of his Burr portraits, by purchase from the Bowrowsons. Five years after my visit, 
 1888, Miss Mary Edwards, the last of the sisters, died, and the paintings were bequeathed to 
 her brother, Ogden Edwards, who in turn passed them on to his son and daughter, Pierrepont 
 and Amy Edwards. Miss Amy Edwards survived her brother, and died quite recently at Eliz- 
 abeth, New Jersey, as I am informed by Mrs. Laura Johnson Carmalt, of New Haven, Con- 
 necticut, whose father was first cousin to the Misses Edwards. Mrs. Carmalt's impression was 
 that the finer of the two paintings was that of Col. Burr, but that the portrait of Theodosia 
 was very pleasing, and represented "a young girl playing with roses," and that this was the 
 portrait that was stolen from the house of Pierrepont Edwards, at Elizabeth, New Jersey, and 
 never recovered. This story of a stolen portrait has passed from mouth to mouth in the Ed- 
 wards family and appeared in print, and while I have never been able to obtain an authentic 
 version of the theft, it seemingly will not down. That a portrait of Theodosia Burr was stolen 
 from Ogden P. Edwards, is likely, but that it was this portrait by Gilbert Stuart is impossible, 
 unless it was recovered after the theft, which I have never seen stated. Both the Stuart por- 
 trait of Theodosia and the full face portrait of Col. Burr by Vanderlyn were given by Miss 
 Amy Edwards to Miss Laura Jay Edwards, of Millbrook, Duchess County, New York, who 
 sold them, in April, 1919, Col. Burr's portrait to Mr. Walter Jennings, of New York City, and 
 Theodosia's portrait to Miss Annie Burr Jennings, his sister. 
 
 In Pidgin's Theodosia, the Stuart painting is quite accurately described in a letter, to the 
 New York Times, of June 27, 1902, written by Mary Snowden Eastly, of Babylon, New York. 
 After stating that it was in the possession of Miss Edwards, she continues: it represents "a 
 very sweet and interesting young girl. She was seated, her head bent slightly forward. Her 
 hair hung in curling tresses over her shoulders and was cut in a straight fine across her fore- 
 head . . . The face had a gentle, almost pathetic, beauty. An air of unconscious grace was 
 noticeable in the pose." Miss Laura Jay Edwards' history of the painting is too fanciful and 
 
 { 44 > 
 
Theodosia Burr 
 
 Miss Annie B. Jennings 
 
 Gilbert Stuart 
 
inaccurate to reproduce it. Little is needed to complete Miss Eastly's description of Stuart's 
 Theodosia: She already looks dignified enough to do the honors of her father's household, 
 which she did at fourteen years, as she sits demurely in a large arm chair, adjacent to a table 
 upon which rests two books, dressed all in white with much lace about her waist and neck. Her 
 hands appear in her lap, and in the right one she holds a book into which her index finger is 
 inserted, not holding flowers, as Mrs. Carmalt wrote. The painting is obscurely signed with 
 the artist's name, and, as I believe it was painted in 1794, Theodosia was about eleven years 
 old. 
 
 By a strange error Mr. Pidgin (see Theodosia, pp. 430 and 434), after studying the hair of 
 St. Memin's pantograph likeness of Theodosia, dated 1797, and reading Miss Eastly's de- 
 scription, reaches the false conclusion that St. Memin simply copied this Stuart portrait. This 
 is impossible, for the Stuart portrait of Theodosia, and the St. Memin of 1797, are as unlike as 
 the sun and the moon. Each stands for an entirely distinct portrayal. 
 
 Her father, Colonel Burr, criticised it accurately in a letter he wrote to her Jan. 5, 1795: 
 "Your picture is really like you: still it does not quite please me. It has a pensive, sentimental 
 air, that of a love-sick maid. Stuart has probably meant to anticipate what you may be at six- 
 teen, but even in that I think he has missed it." Charles Felton Pidgins Theodosia, The First 
 Gentlewoman of Her Time, Boston, 1907, page 199. 
 
 Lawrence Park's Gilbert Stuart supplies a further description of this painting: 
 
 N. Y. 1794. Canvas 29 x 23^ inches. 
 
 Life-size, seated three quarters right in an arm chair upholstered in dark red. The figure 
 is placed to the left of the center of the canvas. She is shown as a young girl in her twelfth 
 year, wearing a simple low-necked white gown, the neck trimmed with white lace, and a white 
 shawl is falling from her shoulders, covering her arms. She gazes at the spectator with large, 
 brown, dreamy eyes, and her straight brown hair is brushed forward on her forehead and falls 
 upon her neck. Beside her at her left is a table covered with a brownish-red cloth on which 
 rests two leather-bound books with red title labels. Another book is held in her right hand, 
 lying on her lap, with the index finger thrust between the pages. A bit of a pale grayish-blue 
 satin sash is shown at her waist. The background is of a dark greenish tone, a gray fluted pil- 
 aster at the right is seen rising beyond the table. The picture was at one time in bad condition, 
 and the head has been much restored, losing a good deal of the Stuart feeling by the process. 
 On the upper one of the two books lying on the table is written: "Burr;" directly below it on 
 the lower book is ".Stuart 95. F 1 " . . . 
 
 "This portrait was in the possession of Judge Ogden Edwards, and is in all probability 
 the one which he found, together with the Stuart portrait of Aaron Burr, in the house of a 
 colored woman in the "Short Hills of New Jersey." From his family it came to Miss Amy 
 Edwards, of Elizabeth, New Jersey, who bequeathed it to Miss Laura Jay Edwards, of Mill- 
 brook, New York, from whom it was bought in April, 1919, by Miss Annie Burr Jennings, 
 New York City, the present owner. When Miss Jennings acquired it, the portrait was attri- 
 buted to Vanderlyn, but when it was cleaned the rather bright colors disappeared and the 
 original softened Stuart came out." 
 
 "Reproduced in half tone (from a photograph taken before the picture was restored to 
 
 { 45 } 
 
its present state), in 1 Aaron Burr,' by Samuel H. Wandell and Meade Minnigerode, 1925, Vol. 
 1, facing page 128. Not listed in Mason. Illustrated." 
 
 Park's statement is correct except that the one time owner of the painting residing at 
 Short Hills was a white woman, not a colored woman. 
 
 { 46 } 
 
Theodosia Burr 1796 
 
 St. Memin 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
The 1796 Vanderlyn Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Theodosia Burr 
 
 mm 
 
 mm 
 
 mm. 
 
 ANDERLYN'S next effort was to paint Theodosia Burr,* in 1796, when she 
 had reached the age of thirteen years. Stuart had already done so and had pro- 
 duced a fine work of great charm. For so young an artist as the twenty year old 
 Vanderlyn to attempt it was hazardous; he was as like to be commended for his 
 courage as to be condemned for his temerity. He was clever enough to realize 
 this and did not attempt to fly too high. In consequence he made no pretentious effort; he 
 simply painted his subject in profile, standing, at half-length, and you feel that she is a sweet, 
 immature girl, nothing more. She is probably still in short skirts, her features are somewhat 
 sharp and her hair flows loosely down her back and shoulders. Though crudely painted, the 
 picture is attractive because of its simplicity. Even in size it is modest, for it is a small cabinet 
 painting. Her father doubtless admired it, with its forecast of her future physical beauty, and 
 perhaps at his request, but just as likely by St. Memin's own desire, it was reproduced in 1797, 
 by that artist's peculiarly exact method as an engraving. I saw this little painting first about 
 thirty-five or forty years ago when it was in the possession of the Edwards family, then resid- 
 ing in West 47th Street just off of Fifth Avenue. Today it is owned by Miss Laura Jay Ed- 
 wards, of Millbrook, Duchess County, N. Y., who acquired it from her father Jonathan Ed- 
 wards, the son of Ogden Edwards who no doubt obtained it in his general rescue of the Burr 
 portraits from the Bowrowsons. That it came from them I have no doubt, for Col. Burr had 
 another Vanderlyn portrait of Theodosia much more precious to him; one which was his con- 
 stant companion at home and abroad, and which abided with him until his death. Naturally 
 he would have neither desire nor means to carry more than this one and all others were ap- 
 propriated by the Bowrowsons. 
 
 Vanderlyn's artistic development was rapid. At twenty-six he did work of such excellence 
 that today it passes for Stuart's. Their palette and technic were frequently identical and both 
 painted so thinly that at times the grain of the canvas produced the shadows and half tones. 
 His European study was soon to lend grace and distinction to his compositions. 
 
 ♦Pidgin's Theodosia, p. 430, erroneously claims that this portrait was probably the work of Gilbert Stuart and simply copied 
 by St. Memin. It is beyond dubiety the work of Vanderlyn. It correctly appears as the work of Vanderlyn in certain magazine 
 articles, the Burr Genealogy, etc. 
 
 < 47 > 
 
Vanderlyn's Kingston Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Theodosia Burr 
 
 OR want of more definite information I am compelled to designate this portrait 
 of Theodosia, the Kingston Portrait. Many years ago a very unsatisfactory 
 small photograph of a painting, with badly broken edges, even to a substantial 
 loss at the corners, was sent to me from that city. The picture was unframed 
 and the canvas, or material upon which it was painted, was glued to a board. 
 It represented Theodosia at perhaps fourteen years of age, painted a little more than waist 
 length, unfinished arm and hand, body two-thirds displayed, face in profile, small sharp nose, 
 and generally undeveloped features which were, however, unmistakably hers. Her hair fell in 
 two well defined locks, a short one in front of her right ear, a long one forward on her shoulder. 
 She was clothed in a white dress opened at the neck. It was apparently a sketch. Its origin and 
 owner could not be ascertained, and even the photographer was unindicated upon the photo- 
 graph. 
 
 In 1923, I made a determined effort to locate this painting. By proxy I visited every 
 photographer and citizen likely to possess information in Kingston, and failing to obtain it, 
 inserted Oct. 13, 1923, the following query, in the Kingston, New York, Daily Leader: 
 
 WANTED — Information concerning a portrait of Theodosia, daughter of Aaron Burr, 
 at about the age of 12 to 14 years, which was photographed between 1880 and 1890. The por- 
 trait was then unframed and partially lost at its lower margins and was apparently nailed to a 
 board. Please reply to John E. Stillwell, 9 West 49th St., New York City. 
 
 No success followed until May, 1928, when I was told of the existence of a portrait of 
 Theodosia, in the Museum of the Senate House, Kingston. Investigation proved it to be the 
 so called Vanderlyn Kingston Portrait. On the back of it was: Theodosia Burr presented by 
 Maria Gosman. Painted May 2, 1792. The size of the panel is 4% inches by 6j/£ inches. It is 
 rapidly disintergrating. The accuracy of the date, May 2, 1792, I am inclined to question. 
 Theodosia Burr was born in June, 1783, which would make her, in May, 1792, less than nine 
 years of age and Vanderlyn, born in October, 1776, less than sixteen. Probably May 2, 1792, 
 is a misreading or a late inscription from memory. I would suggest that the work was done 
 about 1796, and was an unused sketch for the painting of Theodosia Burr which he created at 
 this date. 
 
 { 48 } 
 
Theodosia Burr John Vanderlyn 
 
 Senate House, Kingston, N. Y. 
 
The 1796 Portrait of Theodosia Burr 
 
 By 
 
 St. Memin 
 
 mm 
 
 HILE St. Memin's engraving and Vanderlyn's profile portrait of Theodosia 
 Burr were apparently both executed in the year 1796, she certainly looks much 
 older, at the hands of the engraver, than she does at the hands of the painter. 
 Roughly calculated she was thirteen when they were made, but the extremes 
 of the year, if taken, would allow an additional year ; and as we have elsewhere 
 stated, she was at fourteen so precocious that she was the mistress of her father's household. 
 We will concede that she looks well developed for her years, but allowance must be made for 
 the viewpoint of two different men and two different methods or mediums of expression, the 
 burin and the brush. St. Memin depicts her with small, aristocratic features, a resolute mouth 
 and profuse hair falling, unrestrained, down her back. She has not yet reached the age of ex- 
 travagant dress, but wears a pleated linen waist edged, at the neck and shoulders, with a 
 heavy ruffle. 
 
 Oct. 16, 1915, Charles Burr Todd, writing to me from Washington's Crossing, New Jer- 
 sey, states that he had heard of a steel engraving of Theodosia Burr Alston, in South Carolina. 
 Nov. 27, 1919, he wrote from Coronado, Florida: "Its the small copper plate in profile, in a 
 circle, in solid gilt frame. It was made in 1809 [ ? ] for Natalie Sumter, the little French emigre 
 who Col. Burr took into his family to be a companion to Theodosia, and it is now owned by 
 the four grand daughters of Natalie. You may remember the latter married Gen. Sumter, of 
 Revolutionary fame. Of these four grandchildren only one is married and she has no children. 
 They regard it as an heirloom and could only be induced to sell it by the offer of a consider- 
 able sum of money, as a favor, and because it would go into and remain in Theodosia's family" 
 . . . "Would you give $1,500. for it?" ... "I can secure the two portraits of Theodosia in St. 
 Memin's own collection for $2,500. each. Do you want them? You remember St. Memin made 
 two impressions, one he gave to the sitter and kept the other himself, then destroyed the plate. 
 He took his collection to France, but it was later bought by an American collector and brought 
 back home; 281 portraits, originals, 2 of them being of Theodosia. I can buy the whole collec- 
 tion for $30,000., and they offered me the two of Theodosia for $2,500. each. They want a big 
 sum to reimburse them for breaking the collection." It is hardly necessary to call attention to 
 the many errors in Mr. Todd's statement, nor to the well-known fact that St. Memin engrav- 
 ings, perhaps of less distinguished persons than the Burrs, have sold at public auction from 
 two to seven dollars apiece. 
 
 Mr. Pidgin falls into error when he says that Colonel Burr in no way referred to the St. 
 Memin engraving, "which is apparently an idealization of the Stuart portrait," and certainly 
 the handsome young woman was not a child of thirteen. Burr may not have referred to this 
 
 { 49 } 
 
engraving of Theodosia but it was none the less an original work of St. Memin. Further allu- 
 sion to it may be found under Stuart's portrait of Theodosia. Theodosia. By Pidgin, pp. 430, 
 433. 
 
 St. Memin's engraving of Theodosia Burr, 1796, appears as a frontispiece to Pidgin's 
 Theodosia; in Ida M. Tarbell's Trial Of Aaron Burr; in Charles Kassan Wead's magazine 
 article on St. Memin Portraits, etc., etc. 
 
 { 50 } 
 
Theodosia Burr 
 
 1796 
 
 St. Memin 
 
The 1802 Vanderlyn Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Theodosia Burr Alston 
 
 HE most beautiful of all the portraits of Theodosia is that by Vanderlyn, 
 painted in 1802. April 5th, of that year, Col. Burr wrote to his daughter that 
 he was coming South. An event was shortly expected. When he arrived at 
 Clifton, a day's journey from Charleston, where Theodosia was, he wrote her, 
 April 30, 1802, of his detention because of a full stage — -"not even a seat for 
 the Vice-president," and that "William arrived here this afternoon and tells us you are well, 
 and your husband ill. This is exactly wrong, unless he means to take the whole trouble off your 
 hands, as some good husbands have heretofore done; so at least Darwin records. God bless 
 thee, my dear Theodosia." The boy, the cause of so much of her future sorrow, arrived May 
 22, 1802. Her recovery was expeditious, and she sailed, with her father to New York, where 
 they arrived June 23, 1802. It will be recalled that Theodosia was born at Albany, June 21, 
 1783, was married Feb. 2, 1801, and was now the mother of a promising boy a few months 
 old. Vanderlyn had apparently declined Burr's request, (mentioned in his letter of April 5th 
 to Theodosia), "to ship himself for the port of Charleston on the first of May." The artist 
 realized the moment was inopportune, but now the time was ripe and he availed himself of it. 
 Mrs. Alston sailed for the South, Nov. 24, 1802, which she reached after a five month's ab- 
 sence and a ten day passage. It was during these five months, in the Summer and early Fall of 
 1802, (during a portion of which time she was ill), that this portrait was painted. Dec. 4, 1802, 
 Burr wrote: "Vanderlyn has finished your picture in the most beautiful style imaginable. 
 When it was done, he exclaimed with enthusiasm: 'There is the best work I have ever done in 
 America.' " On Dec. 16th, following, he writes again to his daughter: "Vanderlyn projects to 
 visit Charleston, but I am sure he will not. He is run down with applications for portraits, all 
 of which, without discrimination, he refuses. He is greatly occupied in finishing his Niagara 
 views, which indeed, will do him honor. They will be four in number, and he thinks of having 
 them engraved in France. You hear the roaring of the cataract when you look at them." 
 
 This Vanderlyn portrait of Theodosia, painted in 1802, is as simple as it is graceful and 
 elegant. Fresh from the study of classic art, the artist portrays her Grecian features in profile, 
 producing a cameo-like relief in a painting which has always been foremost in popularity in 
 19th century American art. This statuesque treatment had largely its revival in the Napole- 
 onic era and its strongest exponents were David and his followers. The finely poised head, the 
 straight nose, the short upper lip, the closely drawn hair and lineless face of Theodosia all lent 
 themselves to producing this effect, which was still furthered by a veil flowing from her head 
 down around both of her shoulders, and a simple white dress destitute of all ornament, cut V 
 shape at the neck and belted high at the waist. Perhaps for perfect symmetry her jowls, neck 
 
 i 51 } 
 
and ear are too heavy and the head is too much strained by the forced rotation of her neck 
 upon the body, which is placed nearly full, facing the spectator. It is painted upon canvas at 
 near half length, upon a plain background. Theodosia appears in it the perfection of youthful 
 feminine development, radiant with its health and happiness. It was Burr's inseparable com- 
 panion at home and abroad and he displayed it where and whenever opportunity offered. There 
 was no surer passport to his affections than to admire it, which was generously done. Once, 
 when in need of slight repairs, he took it to Carl Frederik von Breda, the Swedish Court 
 painter, the pupil of Reynolds and the Vandyck of his own country, who exclaimed "Good 
 God pardon the freedom; but can any man on earth be worthy of that woman? I know how to 
 estimate her. Such a union of delicacy, dignity, sweetness and genius I never saw. Is she 
 happy? He almost shed tears." 
 
 Breda's analysis was about correct. The reigning Duke of Weimar, who Burr claimed 
 knew art, "Found a great deal of fault with the painter. In the original, he said, there must be 
 dignity, majesty, genius, gentleness, sensibility all discernable in the picture, but imperfectly 
 expressed." It looks as if the Duke possessed double vision to see so much. Burr believed it all 
 and himself wrote: "amid a galaxy of Swedish beauty, and I have nowhere seen a greater pro- 
 portion than at Stockholm, it was distinguished and did honour to the subject, to the artist 
 and to me." When the painting only provoked commonplace admiration he was peeved and 
 out of humor. Its preservation was a constant cause of anxiety, and it was rolled, encased, 
 varnished or restored unceasingly. He carried it on his lap during travel, and hung it in his 
 room where he could address it. How deep was the love and how prophetic his forebodings 
 when he wrote: "I bid you bon soir a dozen times before I shut you up in that dark case. I can 
 never do it without regret. It seems as if I were burying you alive." And his love was returned 
 a thousand fold, for she wrote: "I contemplate you with such a strange admixture of humility, 
 admiration, reverence, love and pride that very little superstition would be necessary to make 
 me worship you as a superior being; such enthusiasm does your character excite in me. When 
 I afterward revert to myself, how insignificant do my best qualities appear. My vanity would 
 be greater if I had not been placed so near you; and yet my pride is our relationship. I had 
 rather not live than not be the daughter of such a man." 
 
 Such stupendous homage has never been paid before nor since to any human being! 
 
 The man who could write in his private diary "I suffer and freeze" yet smile to the world 
 and blind his daughter with the cheer of his letters; the man who could silently ignore affronts 
 and not justify his actions; the man upon whom fell a blow so great that he wrote in his agony 
 "I am severed from the human race" yet who uncomplainingly resumed the tasks of life, was 
 no common mortal. Even his enemies should concede him fortitude, self respect and deep 
 paternal love. 
 
 I have never been able to locate the original portrait of Theodosia Burr Alston painted 
 by Vanderlyn in 1802, but it was frequently engraved in the middle of the 19th century, and 
 I suspect that it still exists in some branch of the Bowrowson family. The copies that Burr so 
 frequently ordered between 1810 and 1815 from Vanderlyn of this 1802 painting were cut offs 
 at bust length of the original. They were created for ease of transportation but in this case 
 utility materially sacrificed the beauty and compositional value of the original painting. Of 
 
 i 52 > 
 
Theodosia Burr Alston 1802 John Vaaderlyn 
 
 Mrs. T. D. Waters 
 
these replicas I can now locate two, though I know there were more. One is in the possession 
 of Mrs. Robert H. Horsey (nee Florence Middleton), of 19 Hillside Avenue, Summit, New 
 Jersey, while the other is in the possession of Mrs. T. D. Waters (nee Frances Breckenridge), 
 of 1523 31st Street, W., Washington, D. C. There is much sentiment attached to the former 
 for it was the painting Burr carried with him in his hurried departure to Europe, and it abided 
 with him until the time of his death. I had the pleasure of first seeing this painting in 1882, 
 and since then have made many ineffectual attempts to purchase it. It is in poor physical con- 
 dition; the paint has flaked from the canvas in transverse lines from being frequently rolled. 
 It is doubtless this painting that is erroneously referred to in Pidgin's Theodosia, pp. 427, 428, 
 as a Gilbert Stuart, and pronounced by its owners in a frail condition. If the instructions in 
 Burr's will were carried out this painting passed to his kinswoman, Miss Theodosia Prevost, 
 and this I believe was the case. 
 
 The kinswoman that Burr called Theodosia Prevost was a spinster and the daughter of 
 Hon. John Bartow Prevost, Burr's stepson ; hence Theodosia Prevost was practically a step 
 granddaughter to Col. Burr. She died in 1865, leaving a will in which she called herself of New 
 Bridge (Barbadoes), now known as Englewood, N. J., and gave to her friend, Helen Hughes, 
 her silver, pictures, and personal effects, and to her brother Stanhope Prevost, of Lima, Peru, 
 her real estate. James N. Piatt, of New York, was her executor. From him, in August, 1882, I 
 ascertained that Miss Hughes was Miss Prevost's companion, residing with her for many 
 years. That she was aged and died, probably, without close heirs. The cup with Theodosia's 
 portrait was sent to Lima, "but the Breckenbridges, of Allton, now have it." 
 
 In reply to a letter addressed to them, I received the following : 
 
 Allton, Oct. 5, 1883. 
 
 D r JohnE.StiUweU 
 Dear Sir: — 
 
 Your courteous letter of Sept. 29th received day before yesterday. It affords me great 
 pleasure to tell you all I know about my picture of Theodosia Burr Allston. It is done on 
 Sevres china — a small medallion mounted on copper, about 2% inches long and 2 inches wide. 
 It was given to my late husband, D r M. P. Breckenridge, by his mother who was a daughter 
 of John B. Prevost. Miss Theodosia Prevost was the only sister of my mother-in-law and may 
 have owned the picture for some time, but I do not know that she did. I once had a large copy 
 of the original portrait by Vanderlyn, which Col. Burr always carried with him and supposed 
 it would be given to my daughter Theodosia P. Breckenridge, but it was bequeathed to the 
 branch of the Prevost family in Lima, Peru. The Prevosts in Lima also have a Sevres cup with 
 a medallion on it like mine, and a saucer with initials, but both were badly broken and injured 
 in being transported to South America. The life long friend and companion of Miss Theodosia 
 Prevost, Miss Hughes, told me that the portrait of Theodosia which Col. Burr always carried 
 with him had been left by him to an illegitimate daughter and afterwards sold for debt, and 
 was in the possession of so wicked a man in Brooklyn or New York, that I had better not try 
 to find out what was likely to be its fate. She told me about it in 1871, a year or so before her 
 death. Hoping to have contributed to helping you in your researches 
 
 I remain, Yours truly 
 
 Lucy L. Breckenridge. 
 
 < 53 > 
 
Hip Burr says that when Colonel Burr left his father's house he took with him the rolled 
 portrait of Theodosia, which no doubt is correct, for he naturally would not part with it. 
 Hence it is likely this identical painting passed to Miss Prevost and then to Burr's daughter 
 Frances. Mrs. Breckenridge's letter tells how it left them. Now the query is how did this rolled 
 Vanderlyn come to the Columbus Burr family. This is answered by them: Aaron Columbus 
 Burr had his attention drawn to a portrait of Theodosia in the possession of one, Rodgers, 
 owner of a pawn, jewelry or curiosity shop, in Chatham Street. He bought it, paying possibly 
 $50. for it. 
 
 The second known replica to which we have alluded as owned by Mrs. Waters, of Wash- 
 ington, D. C, likewise passed through the hands of Miss Theodosia Prevost. It was probably 
 given directly to her by Colonel Burr, during his lifetime. Upon her death it passed to her 
 brother Stanhope Prevost, of Lima, Peru, and following his demise it was successively owned 
 by his sons Henry and Charles, and by the latter passed directly to Frances Breckenridge 
 Waters, a daughter of Lewis Breckenridge, whose mother was a daughter of John Bartow 
 Prevost, the step-son of Colonel Burr and half-brother of Theodosia Burr Alston. The paint- 
 ing is very beautiful and in a fine state of preservation and does credit to Vanderlyn. Theo- 
 dosia is described as wearing a white dress and a pale blue sash and scarf. Through the kind- 
 ness of Mrs. Waters I am able to reproduce it. 
 
 How many replicas were made of the 1802 portrait of Theodosia Burr is unknown and it 
 would be idle to speculate thereon. The work of copying it never ceased for years. 
 
 July 7, 1814, Burr addressed a letter to Monsieur Jean Van Der Lyn a Paris, in which, 
 among other things, he said: "I am sorely afraid my dear John that you have neglected to 
 make a copy of that portrait which I left with so much hesitation and regret— I fear because 
 you have not mentioned it in any of your letters, which I think you would have done if your 
 engagement had been performed. Should my apprehension be just, I pray you to set about the 
 work forthwith and that you will send both original & copy by Dr. B [Bollman] in case you 
 should not come out with him ..." 
 
 New York, July 28, 1815, again Burr wrote to Vanderlyn at Paris: "... I am weary of 
 hearing that you are coming & shall not believe it untill you do actually come . . . Pay Captain 
 Skinner half your passage & I will pay the rest on your arrival. If you should not come, send 
 by Skinner the copy you have made of Theodosia's picture — I would not trust the original and 
 copy by the same ship unless you should come yourself." 
 
 From the ambiguity of Burr's entries in his diary, between Dec. 15, 1810, and July 17, 
 1811, one might think it possible that another copy of Vanderlyn's 1802 painting remained in 
 Paris, and became the property of Madame Fenwick, but a perusal of Governor Alston's let- 
 ter, reproduced under the 1811 portrait of Theodosia, would correct this impression. Burr also 
 had the 1802 portrait enamelled in miniature for a watch cover. The following entries bear 
 upon both the portrait and the watch ; then strangely omit all reference to similar enamelled 
 medallions applied to china cups which passed, and still belong, to the Breckenridges, one of 
 which was mentioned in Burr's will, and to another medallion mentioned by Governor Alston 
 in his letter of Feb. 16,1816. 
 
 i 54 } 
 
February, 1810, Burr reproaches Vanderlyn as lazy and irritable, and states that after 
 five months a promised copy of this portrait was not started. Mch. 1, 1810, he left with Van- 
 derlyn Theodosia's painting "to be put in the hands of an engraver," i. e. probably an en- 
 ameller. Apr. 22, 1810. Evidently Vanderlyn had commenced to copy his 1802 portrait of 
 Theodosia, for Burr notes "Your picture goes on slowly." Sept. 28, 1810. "Vanderlyn has be- 
 come a little lazy. He promised me a copy of your picture which has been in his hands for the 
 purpose now five months. For the last four he has not touched it." 
 
 Paris, Dec. 15, 1810. "To Vanderlyn's to get him to send your picture to Madame Fen- 
 wicks. 
 
 Dec. 16, 1810. "Vanderlyn has not sent the picture to Fenwick. The lazy dog; but he is 
 about to model your head en platre, which if he does shall forgive him many sins." 
 
 Dec. 17, 1810. "To Madame Fenwicks. Your picture was there and you were the princi- 
 pal topic. She thinks it worth a voyage to America to see you, and I told her I had written you 
 that it was worth a voyage to France to see her." 
 
 Jan. 15, 1811. The replica was still in Vanderlyn's possession, for Burr enters in his diary 
 " — called on Hahn having engaged to walk with him to Vanderlyn's at this hour. Put off that 
 walk. Madame the business is to show him your portrait and to know for how much I can 
 have it enamelled on a watch. Also that of Gamp to enamel on another watch, to replace the 
 lostl'Epine." 
 
 Jan. 20, 1811. "At half past nine to Hahn's whom I took with me to Vanderlyn's to look 
 at your picture, and estimate the expense of an enamelled copy in minature to be put on a 
 watch which I design for Gamp, so soon as I get possession of my fortune." 
 
 Paris, June 22, 1822. ... to Vanderlyn's; he has neglected your enamelled watch, and the 
 picture is not yet finished by the enameller. 
 
 June 25, 1811. Walked to Vanderlyn's who was busy with his beautiful model who con- 
 sented that I should assist and in I came. At three took Vanderlyn to the enameller's. He will 
 make a horrid thing and I fear you will be little pleased, except with my endeavours to please 
 you. 
 
 July 17, 1811. "took him [Vanderlyn] with me to the enamellers to see your watch. The 
 copy of Fenwick's picture is nearly done. Am to have it Monday morning." 
 
 Further allusions to this enamelled watch, as well as others, are carried on in the chapter 
 on Burr's Watches. 
 
 The 1802 portrait of Theodosia by Vanderlyn was first engraved as a frontispiece for 
 Matthew L. Davis' second volume of the Memoirs of Aaron Burr, issued in 1837, by G. Parker, 
 and again, in 1858, by H. Wright Smith for J. Parton's Life and Times Of Aaron Burr. And 
 it has been in common usage ever since. 
 
 i 55 } 
 
The 1811 Vanderlyn Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Theodosia Burr Alston 
 
 HERE is a portrait of Theodosia, in my possession, which I believe was painted 
 in 1811, by Vanderlyn. Next to the 1802 portrait of her, this is the finest and 
 most artistic representation of her features extant, and is beyond doubt the 
 most astonishing reproduction in progeny of parental features ever recorded. 
 It is Burr himself at his zenith. In the Catalogue of the Celebrated Dr. William 
 H. Crimm Collection of Genuine Antiques, sold in Baltimore, Maryland, in April, 1903, it was 
 described under Lot 787, as Portrait Supposed to be Theodosia Burr. Artist unknown. It was 
 purchased by Henry Alio way, Esq., of Goshen, New York, for sixteen dollars, my own agent 
 not having arrived early enough to secure it. Most of the bidders at the sale were in pursuit of 
 mahogany and household decorations, and it was overlooked. Before leaving Baltimore, Mr. 
 Alloway had the satisfaction of having the correctness of his purchase confirmed by members 
 of the Burr and Edwards families, who unsuccessfully contended for its repurchase, and per- 
 haps had the greater satisfaction of, a few years later, passing it to me for as many hundreds 
 as he had paid dollars. An inquiry addressed to the auctioneer, or an announcement from the 
 rostrum, gave its provenance as the Alston family, of South Carolina. In investigating the 
 origin of the Vanderlyn portrait of Colonel Burr, in the possession of the New York Historical 
 Society, I tried to establish the presence of Vanderlyn in this country in 1809. If this conten- 
 tion is proven, it would have been possible for Vanderlyn to have painted this portrait in that 
 year, failing which, we must deduce that Vanderlyn visited America in 1811. Theodosia was 
 in New York from Oct. 31, 1808, to Feb. 19, 1809. She was ill in November, 1808, but better, 
 if not well, in March, 1809. Moderate sickness would have been no bar, but rather an incen- 
 tive to sitting, hence if Vanderlyn was here in 1809, it could well have been done at that time, 
 though again I repeat the margin of safety in time is small as argued in the chapters on the 
 Vandyck and the New York Historical Society's portrait of her father. The presumption that 
 Vanderlyn may have visited America in 1811, and that the painting of Theodosia may have 
 been painted that year, rests upon certain allusions in Burr's diary : 
 
 Paris, April 1, 1811, he writes to Theodosia . . . "know that Vanderlyn will sail for the 
 United States some time in May. By him you shall know everything, and by him you shall 
 have your books." 
 
 Vanderlyn, apparently, did not sail in May, for Burr, on July 11, 1811, writes: "The let- 
 ters of Gamp [his grandson] have not come. They will come, however, for I will ransack all 
 Europe for them. By Vanderlyn will write him." 
 
 So late as Aug. 7, 1811, Burr wrote Vanderlyn from Amsterdam: . . . "If you could leave 
 Paris within forty-eight hours after having this, there is no doubt you would be in time for the 
 
 { 56 } 
 
Theodosia Burr Alston 1811 John Vanderlyn 
 
 Dr. John E. Stillwell 
 
Vigilant, and there is now plenty of room for all, the French and the Dutch passengers, thrown 
 out by some new imperial order. If you come not, I insist on your finishing further Theodosia's 
 picture in your best manner. Adieu. A. B." (From letters found among the papers of the Mal- 
 loy family of Kingston, New York, which were originally given to Dominie Robert L. Goos- 
 man, of Kingston, by Vanderlyn at the time of his death in 1853. They were published in the 
 New York Sunday World in 1903.) 
 
 After this date I find Burr making no further allusion to Vanderlyn, and it well may be 
 that he had sailed to America. 
 
 Nothing would have been more natural than that Governor Alston should wish for a por- 
 trait of his wife, and that this one was especially painted for him, whether it was done in 1809 
 or in 1811, I feel quite assured. It became an Alston possession, and so remained until it was 
 secured by Dr. Crimm. Other Burr portraits perhaps passed to the Alstons. Theodosia's father 
 wrote, April 5, 1802, "I have ordered Vanderlyn to send you, from New York, both his and 
 Stuart's picture of A. Burr. ... I have also desired that my beautiful little bust of Bonaparte 
 be sent to Mrs. William Alston." If these portraits ever were sent they were later returned, 
 for the subsequent history of both portraits is known; the bust, if it ever reached its destina- 
 tion, is now unknown to me. But other portraits of Colonel Burr were, perhaps, possessed by 
 his daughter, and if so, may have remained with the Alstons, perhaps to be destroyed during 
 the Civil War. 
 
 Governor Joseph Alston, severely ailing before his wife's death, and further crushed by 
 her tragic removal, died Sept. 10, 1816. Feb. 16, preceding this event, he wrote to Colonel 
 Burr: "Vanderlyn, I perceive from the papers, has returned to New York. Nothing, I trust, 
 has prevented him from bringing back the portrait [of Theodosia] you left with him. Let me 
 again entreat you to use your influence with him in procuring me a good copy. I received some 
 days since, through the kindness of Mrs. John B. Prevost, a miniature, which appears to have 
 been taken from Vanderlyn's portrait. The execution is good, but in expression it is by no 
 means equal to the portrait." It was probably one of the enamelled medallions. 
 
 I doubt whether Governor Alston had his wish complied with, so far as Theodosia's por- 
 trait was concerned, for Vanderlyn was overworked, and he, Alston, died too soon thereafter. 
 A few weeks following his demise, his brother, William A. Alston, wrote to Colonel Burr that 
 his son-in-law, Governor Alston, had cancelled, in his will, all demands that he had against 
 him, and sought from Colonel Burr instructions how to send a certain trunk to him contain- 
 ing, his late brother said, things that belonged to your daughter Theodosia, and which "he 
 never had the courage to open;" and to complete the disposal of her estate a certain collection 
 of other articles, probably personal attire, was to be sent to the eldest daughter of Mr. J. B. 
 Prevost. 
 
 This likeness of Theodosia Burr is most striking. She is painted in profile, her prominent 
 forehead and piercing dark eye being the most outstanding features. Her abundant auburn 
 hair curls loosely upon her temple and is massed above and behind her head. Her ear and jowl 
 are heavy, her nose nearly Grecian, and her upper lip short and bowed. Her dress is cut V 
 shaped at the neck, and edged with lace which merges into a standing lace collar of double 
 thickness. The resemblance of this portrait to the 1802 portrait, of her father, Colonel Burr, 
 by Vanderlyn, is truly remarkable. 
 
 i 57 > 
 
The Biays Crayon Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Theodosia Burr 
 
 mm. 
 
 mm 
 
 OCTOR LEAMING, of New York City, an able lung specialist, when I was a 
 youth in the practice of medicine, was beloved by everyone because of his 
 kindness. I was too young to know him well, but he collected art of every de- 
 scription, some of considerable mediocrity. The dear old Doctor had a fond- 
 ness for scrubbing, with solvents, the surfaces of his newly acquired paintings 
 always hoping that a later might cover an earlier painting, perhaps a masterpiece. Many can- 
 vases came to an end, but not his enthusiasm, that endured until his gentle soul passed on. 
 Then followed the dispersal of his goods. Among the articles sold was a pastel portrait of Theo- 
 dosia Burr. Of antecedent history it had none. Nor has subsequent effort added anything to 
 its history. 
 
 It represents Theodosia Burr done in profile, in crayon, at breast length, with her charac- 
 teristic features: the lobe of a large ear, hazel eyes, heavy chin and jowls, with rather bowed 
 hps, nearly Grecian nose, and a superabundance of curly hair falling in mass upon too heavy a 
 neck, but a type-arrangement nevertheless of that period. It is Theodosia Burr done by an 
 earnest though not brilliant artist, one who gives us a pleasing rather than a great portrait. 
 His draughtsmanship is competent though not distinguished, and his colors, slightly mellowed 
 by time, are still fresh and well preserved. It is to be regretted that the photograph from 
 which the reproduction is made is so bad that injustice is done the original, but it was the best 
 obtainable from a local photographer. The present owner of the portrait is Mrs. Lalla Biays, 
 Hooks Mill, Hancock, Maryland, who has kindly consented to its reproduction. 
 
 { 58 } 
 
Theodosia Burr 
 
 Unknown Artist 
 
 Mrs. Lalla Biays 
 
The Nag's Head Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Theodosia Burr Alston 
 
 GONIZED by the death of her only child, broken in health and anxious to meet 
 her beloved father, Theodosia, with the approval of her husband, sailed from 
 Georgetown, South Carolina, for New York, Dec. 30, 1812, on the pilot boat 
 Patriot. She never reached her destination. Burr and his immediate family, as 
 well as Governor Alston and his family, believed that the ship foundered off 
 Cape Hatteras, in the severe storm which arose January 1, 1813, and that all on board were 
 lost. The romantic and the credulous attributed the ship's non arrival to destruction by pir- 
 ates, then infesting the Southern Atlantic waters; while others hoped that The Patriot had sur- 
 rendered to a British man-of-war and that Theodosia might be temporarily a prisoner. This 
 hope was soon abandoned, but the pirate rumor remained, insistent yet unproven. From time 
 to time it received accentuation by the confessions of dying pirates. Of low mentality, aged, 
 sick and fear stricken they aroused the sympathy of the good and the kind by death bed re- 
 pentance, and told circumstantial stories of Theodosia's death by walking the plank, follow- 
 ing the surrender of The Patriot to pirates. Pidgin, in his Theodosia, gives these statements at 
 length and I abridge what he and his contributors say in the following resume: (1) in 1833, 
 twenty years after the event, a pirate dying in Mobile, told his physician, who told a respect- 
 able merchant, that it was he who placed the plank and forced Theodosia to walk it; (2) 
 Dominique You, apparently a primitive brute of colossal size, in melodramatic language, con- 
 fessed to Dr. Rhineberg, that on Jan. 3, 1813, he and his crew of pirates boarded The Patriot, 
 off of Cape Hatteras, which was dismantled by a recent storm, slaughtered and threw over 
 the crew, saved Theodosia from bodily assault, but in conformity to his piratical oath, or- 
 dered her to her death by walking the plank. When the confession is finished you are con- 
 vinced that either Dominique or the doctor was a scholar, or more; (3) in 1850, thirty-seven 
 years after the event, Benjamin Franklin Burdick, an aged sailor, in the Cass County Poor 
 House, at Cassiopolis, Michigan, confessed to Mrs. Parks, the wife of a Methodist minister, 
 that he was the pirate who tipped the plank that Odessa Burr Alston was forced to walk; 
 (4 and 5) two criminals, executed in Norfolk, Virginia, confessed to being among the crew who 
 boarded The Patriot and forced Theodosia to walk the plank ; (6) a sailor dying in Texas con- 
 fessed that he was one of the crew of pirates who participated in the death of Theodosia and 
 (7) lastly there was Babe, an admitted pirate and suspect, who had a temporary residence in 
 the New York Tombs, but who really conceded nothing. By this time the crew is pretty well 
 accounted for. How much of truth and how much of criminal morbidity occurs in their state- 
 ments it is impossible to determine, but I should feel reluctant to accept any of them as the 
 death certificate of Theodosia Burr. But at this juncture there is injected into the situation a 
 
 < 59 } 
 
much more serious and stronger claim for piracy. Apparently there were two sets of pirates in 
 1813, the buccaneers or highwaymen of the sea, of which the foregoing were some, and another 
 group winch operated on or close to the shore ostensibly as fishermen, but who were really 
 land pirates. They occupied the sand bars that fence the coast of North Carolina from the 
 Atlantic Ocean and were locally known as bankers. "The banker of one hundred years ago 
 was almost a barbarian ... his savage instincts induced him to use every means to lure vessels 
 ashore for purposes of plunder. And when a wreck occurred, the wreckers held high carnival. 
 The sparse population turned out en masse, and with demoniac yells murdered without re- 
 morse the helpless victims who escaped the raging surf,"(Betty F. Pool); and while today they 
 have vastly improved, they remain "an unprincipaled people, piratical, superstitious, un- 
 cleanly and ignorant." Whether The Patriot simply foundered during the violent January gale 
 of 1813, or whether she succumbed to the attack of buccaneers or whether "the bankers" or 
 land pirates completed what the gale or sea pirates started, may remain a matter of specula- 
 tion, but there is interwoven with her loss the history of a stranded vessel from which was 
 recovered the portrait of an attractive young woman supposedly Theodosia Burr Alston. 
 
 In 1869, Dr. William Gaskins Pool, of Elizabeth City, North Carolina, was called in a 
 professional capacity to see Mrs. Mann, a woman approximately seventy years of age, who 
 resided at Nag's Head or Kittyhawk, Cape Hatteras. Mrs. Mann was a poor, suspicious, sul- 
 len soul who developed a sense of gratitude for the doctor's medical attention and paid him 
 by the gift of a portrait which was practically the sole ornament, and the only thing of value 
 that adorned her dirty house, built from the timbers of wrecks, thatched with reeds and 
 oakum. It represented a young and beautiful woman with hair tinged with auburn, piercing 
 black eyes, pink cheeks and red lips, dressed in a white gown cut square at the neck, painted 
 upon a panel, whose dimensions are variously given as 12 x 18 inches, 18 x 20 inches and 27 x 
 30 inches, which according to a later allusion was, during Dr. Pool's ownership, slightly dam- 
 aged by fire in the destruction of his mansion at Eyrie. Dr. Pool extracted from Mrs. Mann 
 the following statement which he never felt sure was the whole story nor the exact truth. 
 When about sixteen years of age she became the common law wife of Joseph Tillett, a young 
 fisherman, and a leader among his fellow men. During his wooing he presented her with this 
 painting, two black home spun silk dresses, made with low bodices, short sleeves and full 
 skirts, apparel for a gentlewoman of small physique, and a lace head covering, which was his 
 share of the salvage of a small pilot boat which he and his companions, just at dawn, descried 
 driving straight towards Nag's Head, with rudder set and sails drawing. After she struck, they 
 boarded her but could not ascertain her identity. From certain concomitant facts, the date 
 was deduced as January, 1813. From what he heard, Dr. Pool had no occasion to suspect Til- 
 lett and his associates were the pirates who boarded The Patriot and murdered her crew and 
 passenger, but it seemed at least possible that Tillett knew more than he chose to tell his 
 future wife, and that she knew more than what she told to Dr. Pool. Enough was given him, 
 however, to arouse in his mind the suspicion that the pilot boat may have been The Patriot, 
 and the portrait that of Theodosia Burr Alston. His assumptions rested upon the tallying 
 dates of the appearance of the wreck and the disappearance of the woman; upon the finding of 
 a portrait of a woman of Theodosia's age in this wreck of a pilot boat ; of accompanying cloth- 
 
 { 60 } 
 
Theodosia Burr Alston 
 
 Mr. Herbert L. Pratt 
 
 Unknown Artist 
 
ing fit for a lady of Theodosia's station and figure, and that the loss of no boat or lady of dis- 
 tinction was known at this date other than The Patriot and TheodosiaBurr Alston. 
 
 Conceding there is a strong probability that the boat was The Pilot and its passenger 
 Theodosia, there still remains to be solved the method of its destruction and the manner of her 
 death. The proof of sea piracy, based upon the confessions of a lot of dying miscreants, raises 
 skepticism to a high level, yet piracy did exist, and walking the plank was a common means of 
 death, and it is only from the mouths of such boastful or penitent rascals that evidence is pro- 
 curable. The statements of the verminous bankers are, to say the least, fantastic. As a rule 
 pirates burned, scuttled or abandoned less desirable boats than their own. A set table, set 
 sails and lashed helm savor of fiction; a painting and books were undesirable and might be 
 left, but silks and plate would hardly be overlooked. Not a soul on board and the vessel looted 
 might as readily be the work of land pirates as of sea pirates and the former may have finished 
 what the elements and not men had started. And to this I incline. And credence must be given to 
 the Admiral in command of the British fleet off the Capes, to whom a letter was addressed by 
 Governor Alston, asking for a safe conduct for his wife, because of her misfortunes and mis- 
 sion, who stated the letter was received by him and the request promptly granted, but that a 
 very violent storm arose during the night and the fleet was scattered and doubtless the pilot 
 boat and all on board were lost. There are too many possibilities for any one to speak with 
 finality, and a haze too inpenetrable for speculation to fathom remains to enshroud the man- 
 ner of the death of Theodosia Burr Alston. 
 
 Does the same degree of uncertainty envelope the Nag's Head portrait? Nothing would 
 have been more natural than for such a daughter, separated from such a father, to have had 
 painted for him a portrait of herself. Nothing could have been more appropriate nor likely to 
 be more highly prized than a portrait to be left as a souvenir of a brief visit. Inspiration is 
 proven. Local talent, the best available no doubt, was requisitioned. The work must have been 
 executed in the Spring of 1812, when approaching her twenty-ninth year, and prior to the 
 death of her boy (June 30, 1812), for from that time she sank into such a state of apathy that 
 any thought of the portrayal of her sick forlorn body would never have occurred to her, nor 
 would an act so mundane have appealed to her. If the creation of this portrait was ever known 
 to Burr it was given no further thought for, naturally, he would consider it lost — lost with his 
 valuable papers and his priceless child. If only the inhospitable shores of North Carolina 
 could have surrendered to him this one thing to soften the agony of that long separation ! So 
 far I have assumed that the Nag's Head portrait represents Theodosia despite the fact that 
 neither on books, papers nor plate is there known to have been found the initials or names of 
 Burr or Alston. Is the assumption sustained? I think so. For fifty-six years it hung in a hovel 
 during which time those who had known her intimately, and whose identification would have 
 been dependable, passed away and the attribution must now rest upon inherent evidence and 
 comparative analysis. No one but a student of portraiture realizes how difficult such deduc- 
 tions are, how wavering such opinions are and how hesitatingly conclusions are reached. The 
 variety of expression that different artists give the same subject, the changes that years bring, 
 the different angles, poise, dress, technic, palette, etc., that enter into the composition of a 
 painting have all to be weighed. The resemblance of consanguinity which has been claimed, 
 
 { 61 > 
 
I look upon as chance rather than an expression of heredity, especially when the kinship used 
 for comparison is so far removed as fourth and fifth cousins. The essential features of resemb- 
 lance in the Nag's Head portrait to the known characteristics of Theodosia's features he in 
 (1) the apparent age of twenty-eight; (2) the piercing dark eyes; (3) the hair touched with 
 auburn; (4) the dress cut square at the neck; (5) a certain heaviness of the jowls; (6) a rather 
 short nose; (7) a large ear, and while the general massiveness of feature, the want of delicacy 
 and plasticity in the modelling and the squareness of the face, detract from the beauty of the 
 portrait, they may readily be the results of inferior workmanship or needed restorations. Van- 
 derlyn probably arrived in America in July, 1811, and must have visited The Oaks, Governor 
 Alston's South Carolina home, where he painted another portrait of Theodosia which rivals, 
 in excellence and beauty, the one of her that he painted in 1802, which he and the world have 
 pronounced so masterly. By comparison with the 1811 portrait the Nag's Head portrait falls 
 mightily, but the inferiority and differences may be explained away when one admits the im- 
 possibility of contrasting a profile and a full face, and concedes that Vanderlyn's conception 
 and brush were as mighty as the other artists' conception and brush were puny and immature. 
 Why was this superb (1811) work of Vanderlyn withheld from her father and the inferior one 
 (the Nag's Head) substituted no doubt will be quickly asked. The answer is as quickly given- 
 it was not hers to give; it belonged to a loving husband, fatally sick, and recently bereft of his 
 only child and now about to part with his wife. What would be more natural than for him, the 
 husband, to cling to this wondrous likeness! And thus it (1811) remained among the Alstons 
 in the South, with Burr, the father, caressing the portrait of his beloved Theodosia (painted 
 in 1802), so long the companion of his travels and the pride of his heart. With the internal 
 evidence and its history, I think the Nag's Head portrait may safely be accepted as the last 
 portrayal of the features of that remarkable woman, the greatest of her sex, Theodosia Burr 
 Alston. 
 
 Upon the death of Dr. Pool, the portrait became the property of his daughter, Anna L. 
 Pool, wife of John Pool Overman, of Elizabeth City, North Carolina. In time it became the 
 property of the Fifth Avenue, New York City, art dealer William Macbeth, who sold it, in 
 1913, to Mr. Herbert L. Pratt, of New York City, in whose possession, in 1928, it remains. 
 
 { 62 > 
 
Theodosia Burr Alston Posthumous 
 
 Dr. John E. Stillwell 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
Vanderlyn's Unfinished Portrait 
 
 Of 
 
 Theodosia Burr Alston 
 
 ROM (1) the maturity of the features, (2) its unfinished state, (3) the artist's 
 well known admiration for the deceased, and (4) the unshakable conviction of 
 the Misses Vanderlyn, from whom I directly bought the portrait, in 1882, that 
 it was the work of their uncle John Vanderlyn and a portrait of Theodosia 
 Burr Alston, the only conclusion that may be drawn is that it represents a post- 
 humous creation. Her tragic death and his attachment would readily prompt such an idealiza- 
 tion. From 1811, when he had last seen her, until his return to America in 1815, was a period 
 of only four years, and his recollection of her features could not have been materially dimin- 
 ished. He elected to paint her full face rather than essay the easier profile, and it may readily 
 be that it was through dissatisfaction with his results that he left the work unfinished, yet it is 
 the common habit of all artists to finish a head completely and leave the accessories incom- 
 plete, when the portrait is to remain a studio possession. That it was to abide with him I have 
 small doubt. 
 
 As the Nag's Head portrait is a full face, painted likewise at the end of her life, it is used 
 here for comparison. Vanderlyn has painted his subject with a shapely oval face while the 
 Nag's Head portrait has a face which is distinctly square ; his treatment of the hair and the 
 dress with its short waist, still savors of the Empire, while the Nag's Head portrait has a dress 
 and hair of a distinctly late feeling, especially the hair. In the eyes, the nose and the mouth 
 the two resemble each other, but I am frank to admit that the attribution of the Nag's Head 
 portrait is better sustained than this posthumous portrait by comparisons with established 
 portraits of Theodosia. Perhaps the differences are due to the fact that one is a real portrait 
 from life while the other is an ideal portrait formed in loving conception of Theodosia as she 
 appeared to the mind of the limner who was her all time devoted admirer. 
 
 To describe a finished portrait that gives a fairly good likeness is difficult; to describe 
 satisfactorily an unfinished portrait is well nigh impossible. The Vanderlyn posthumous por- 
 trait of Theodosia is regretably, most regrettably, unfinished. Had it have been brought to 
 completion, it would have been a chef cToeuvre. The white dress with its high waist line and 
 low cut neck and loosely draped mantle, showing the body rotated forward to the left at half 
 length, the graceful inclines of the neck and shoulders, and the charming poise of the head 
 make a satisfying composition. The head following the movement of the body, shows an ex- 
 quisitely drawn oval face, a straight nose, a medium size mouth, large, dark brown eyes and 
 hair with a mid-part drawn tightly to the head and elevated at the rear. The expression of her 
 face, if it be not sad, is contemplative. It recalls the style of the Frenchman, David, and bears 
 a resemblance to the sisters of the first Napoleon — a beautiful woman, painted con amore. 
 
 On canvas. Size 26 inches high by 22 inches wide. 
 
 { 63 } 
 
Colonel Burr's Natural Children 
 
 And 
 
 The Burr Divorce 
 
 T HAS always been conceded that Burr was a faithful and devoted husband to 
 his first wife. The death of this lady, Theodosia, widow of Colonel James Mar- 
 cus Prevost, and the daughter of Theosodius Bartow by his wife Ann Stillwell, 
 occurred in 1794, after a union with Burr of twelve years. It relieved Burr of 
 marital restraints. He was then thirty-eight years of age and possessed of great 
 mental and physical vigor, qualities he retained forty years longer. When he was nearly an 
 octogenerian, he made a marriage of convenience with the widow of Stephen Jumel, who 
 courted him assiduously and finally bagged him. Bagged is the only word for it. Philip Hone 
 in his diary ironically wrote: "Wednesday July 3rd, 1833. The celebrated Colonel Aaron Burr 
 was married on Monday evening to the equally celebrated Mrs. Jumel, widow of Stephen 
 Jumel. It is benevolent in her to keep the old man in his latter days. One good turn deserves 
 another." This lady with an antecedent history of lax morals, was overbearing and domineer- 
 ing beyond human endurance and was called a devil incarnate. She soon tired of her new hus- 
 band because of his extravagance in money affairs and because he had proved a disappoint- 
 ment. She had gotten his name, but that was all she got. They soon split and despite the 
 assertions of his friends that he had become a helpless paralytic, she nevertheless proceeded 
 to divorce him, alleging statutory grounds. The adultery was falsely proven and an absolute 
 divorce was granted her July 8th, 1836. Though she surrendered her late husband's name, and 
 was again styled Mme. Jumel, she still set such store upon it and his title, that she resumed it 
 when she sought aggrandizement in Europe, where she plumed herself as Madame, Widow of 
 the Late Aaron Burr, Vice President of the United States, formerly Madame Jumel. 
 
 The interval between Burr's marriages was nearly forty years, during which he had many 
 amours; feminine attentions to him may have diminished, but they never ceased; the im- 
 paired attractions of his old age must have been overcome by his gallantry and personal mag- 
 netism, for he was active until near the last. There was no boasting or hypocrisy about him, 
 and he was man enough to assume the paternal care of children born to him at home and 
 abroad. Such were the morals and the manners of many of his time. He was no worse nor 
 better than his contemporaries; no worse nor better than the men of today who cover their 
 tracks through the vastness of this realm and by crime. Men and morals never change. 
 
 While not proven, it is quite generally believed that Col. Burr was the father of one of the 
 Presidents of the United States. As in similar cases, the individual stood out in mental quali- 
 ties and poise from all of his immediate kindred; he was intimate with Burr and his politics 
 were those of Burr, and there had been opportunity. I do not know, however, that Burr ever 
 recognized him as a son. Not so, however, with Aaron Columbus Burr, who, when a young 
 
 { 64 } 
 
man was shipped from France to this country, labeled Aaron, in proof of his paternity, and 
 Columbus in proof of his American origin. Col. Burr promptly befriended him, educated him 
 and was one of the three men who signed his apprenticeship papers to a jeweler. Tins contract, 
 the Colonel's snuff box, a lock of his hair and a letter to Helena Lewis, his daughter Theo- 
 dosia's small scissors, and Joseph Alston's card plate, all intimate belongings of Col. Burr, 
 became the property of Aaron Columbus Burr, and passed to his son, Hip Burr upon his 
 (Aaron Columbus Burr's) death at No. 30 West 129th Street, New York City, in July, 1882, 
 at the age of seventy-four. Aaron Columbus Burr's title to these effects was probably derived 
 from being host to Col. Burr, in the interval between his rupture with Madam Jumel and his 
 last illness; in other words the Colonel probably simply left them behind, temporarily, as he 
 may have thought, when he withdrew to Staten Island. That he did sojourn with Aaron Co- 
 lumbus Burr in 1834-5, at 129 Bowery, is uncontrovertibly proven by reference to the City 
 Directory of that date and the testimony of Dunlap, who in Ins Diary, under date of June 18, 
 1834, narrates that he was accosted in the street by Mme. Jumel, who recited her grievances 
 to him and in answer to his query where does Colonel Burr reside now, replied : with a silver- 
 smith in the Bowery of the name of Burr, young Aaron Burr . . . "What confidence can be 
 placed in the words of such a woman it is hard to say, but Burr's marrying her makes any- 
 thing told of him credible." William Dunlap 's Manuscript Diary, New York Historical Society. 
 The next year father and son had separated. Col. Burr was very ill and had been taken by his 
 relative, Judge Ogden Edwards, to the Port Richmond Hotel, Staten Island, run by Daniel 
 Winant, where it is entered in the ledger: "June 15, 1836, Colonel Aaron Burr commenced 
 board." 
 
 More convincing of this intimacy between father and son is the fact that Aaron Columbus 
 Burr became the owner, in similar fashion as before, of the small water color portrait of Col- 
 onel Burr by Henry Inman, the small Vandyck portrait of Colonel Burr, and probably the 
 small (1809) Vanderlyn portrait of Colonel Burr now in the possession of the New York 
 Historical Society. 
 
 Col. Burr had no reason to be ashamed of his son, Aaron Columbus Burr — the boot was 
 on the other leg if there was any misfit. He became a respected citizen of New York, and made 
 a fortune in his jewelry business and as a dealer in tropical woods and real estate. Despite the 
 later day statement of his family that he was an adopted son of Col. Burr, the fact remains 
 that "young Aaron Burr," as he was called, was, by his own admissions, an illegitimate son of 
 Col. Burr by a member of the De Lisle family. He possessed several well painted cabinet por- 
 traits of individuals of social distinction and refinement, one of which he admitted was his 
 mother. 
 
 In a letter dated Paris, May 17, 1810, addressed to Madame — Burr alludes to "your two 
 pictures and that of L; the latter I leave with Madame Pelough, Rue du Croissant, N° 7, 
 sealed up and addressed to you and subject to your order. The others you must allow me to 
 keep for the present. If your child should grow up and survive you, it may demand one ; the 
 finished one. It will be found in the hands of Theodosia," etc. I am disposed to believe this 
 reference is to the mother of Aaron Columbus Burr. 
 
 The two following entries may possibly refer to the De Lisle family : 
 
 i 65 > 
 
Feb. 9, 1811. "Thinking of ways and means, took that beautiful picture of Caroline, and 
 desired Mr. A. to pledge it for what he could get. It cost fifty guineas, and I doubt whether he 
 will get five on it ... " 
 
 Feb. 11, 1811. "What do you think they had the conscience to offer for Caroline's picture? 
 but I may as well tell you, for you'd never guess; eighteen francs, about three dollars and a 
 half. So took it back," etc., etc. 
 
 Aaron Columbus Burr married two estimable ladies; first, Polly Snethen, the widow of 
 Mr. Coutant, of New Rochelle, a lady seventeen years his senior, by whom he had his only 
 child — a son, Hippolyte Burr, who died, unmarried, when aged about fifty years; second, 
 Amelia Middleton, who survived him and died Dec. 15, 1886, in her seventy-first year. There 
 being no further descendants, the remaining Burr effects passed to a niece of Aaron Columbus 
 Burr's second wife. 
 
 Two other natural children of Col. Burr are known. Whether because of fondness or 
 justice, he made specific allusion to them in his will, dated Jan. 11, 1835: 
 
 Second — I give to my two daughters known by the names of Frances Ann, aged about six 
 years, now residing with Mrs. Frances Watson, and under the immediate care of her daughter 
 Mrs. Sarah Minthorne Tompkins; the other daughter, named Elizabeth being about the age 
 of two years and now residing with Mrs. Guaynetta Conklin both well known to Henry 0. 
 Taylor, all the rest and residue of my personal estate, etc., etc. And Dec. 27, 1835 — Further I 
 direct and order my pictures to be given to my two daughters on the day of their marriage in 
 the meantime to be in the custody of my friend and kinsman Theodosia Prevost by whom the 
 division is to be made . . . Item. I give to my friend and kinsman Theodosia Prevost the pic- 
 ture of my daughter which is enamelled on a China Cup which is believed to be in the upper 
 drawer of my yellow desk." 
 
 In the Spring of 1882, Mrs. Tompkins was located at Tarrytown, N. Y., through her son 
 Capt. Minthorne Tompkins, of New York City. She informed me that Oscar Taylor, the wit- 
 ness to and legatee under Burr's will, succumbed to tuberculosis shortly after Col. Burr died; 
 that Elizabeth, the daughter of Col. Burr, died young; that Frances A. Burr, his other 
 daughter, was the child of a lady of thirty-five or forty years of age, who was probably a resi- 
 dent of Albany, New York, and who was visited by Quakers. She, the mother, was ill at Mrs. 
 Tompkin's house ; her name remains unknown and her last visit to her daughter was when the 
 child was two years old. Frances Burr grew up a good looking, sweet dispositioned and ac- 
 complished lady and received her education at Miss Haines' school, in Gramercy Park. She 
 married Levi P. Leach and died about 1879, leaving two sons, Aaron Burr Leach, aged about 
 twenty-six years, in 1882, and Stanley Prevost Leach, aged about twenty-four years, in 1882. 
 Mr. Leach survived his wife and taught school at Pearl River, Rockland County, New York. 
 It was his wife, Frances, who erected the monument over Col. Burr's grave. What paintings 
 Burr left I have never ascertained; nor do I know positively that Mrs. Leach ever received 
 any. Mrs. Tompkins did, however, tell me that Mr. Leach had an unfinished portrait of Burr, 
 similar to Vanderlyn's profile, which he considered was the work of that artist and which he 
 
 {66} 
 
bought for about $100., in a second hand shop. It was from Mrs. Tompkins that I obtained 
 the address of Col. William Dusenbury Craft, Burr's last law partner, who supplied me with 
 much interesting information which will appear elsewhere. My effort to correspond with Mr. 
 Leach was unsuccessful. I have been told that one of his sons recently came to a tragic end in 
 a town not far distant from Pearl River. 
 
 Burr's was a life of mistakes and the greatest one of them all was his marriage to a prosti- 
 tute for his keep. Extenuation lies in his age and his needs. Dress him up and grace him as you 
 will he was a rag of the man he once was, more to be pitied than decried. Eliza Bowen Jumel 
 was not a woman of reputable amours, but one of a family of professional prostitutes with an 
 unquenchable sex appetite. Nothing she says can be believed. Touch as lightly as you will 
 upon the divorce proceedings which separated the Burrs, and a dirty, revolting tale unfolds. 
 There are three classes in this world — purists, intermediates and others. To the first, holding 
 fast to antiquated religious standards, no latitude in so called illicit intercourse is permissable ; 
 to the second it is debatable whether it is wrong to nullify normality in mankind, and to the 
 third sex indulgence is simply hypocrisy disrobed. The sinners are in the majority and neither 
 church nor state has ever been able to restrain what Nature has so strongly implanted. Burr 
 was one of the sinners. In his Diary he wrote "Four francs for a prostitute and brandy ; two for 
 benevolence." The brandy must have gone to his head. Whatever Ins amours were they were 
 not highway activities and he was as free from cant as he was from brag, and this entry was 
 doubtless solely for his private eye. The defiance of decency lies in its previous publication. 
 
 Burr's marriage to Mme. Jumel was brought to a summary close at the end of three 
 months. They had married July 1, 1833, and in October or November following the Colonel 
 walked out of her house. Each charged the other with bedevilment. She tried to patch up their 
 differences and reunite but failed ; and then the fury of a woman scorned resulted in a suit for 
 an absolute divorce. It was started in Chancery by Eliza B. Burr July 12, 1834. Burr's legal 
 friends rallied to his support and the eminent Charles O'Connor qualified as his counsel. 
 Madame fired the first gun, charging that her husband had violated his marriage contract a 
 few weeks after their union, by having an affair in August, 1833, with a certain female, Jane 
 McManus, in a certain house in Jersey City, "and committing adultery at divers times with 
 divers females whose names are yet unknown," and that he was threatening to sell and dis- 
 pose of his life interest in her real estate and was proceeding to waste and expend the re- 
 mainder of her personal estate and pay his personal debts contracted before their marriage, 
 therewith. 
 
 Burr entered a general denial and countercharged that he left her house because of her 
 "violent and ferocious temper" and "because she behaved in a manner most undutiful, dis- 
 obedient and insulting and particularly at a time when this defendant was in a very low state 
 of health and not expected to survive" and "avers he was credibly informed and believes it to 
 be true and expects to so prove that the complainant hath committed adultery with one or 
 more persons;" he further justified his sale of her property and the disbursements attached 
 thereto and defends Ins rights in her very large, varied and valuable estate. It would have been 
 
 i 67 } 
 
well if both had stopped here, but recriminations followed. Burr amplified his statements con- 
 cerning her adulterous relations and declared that as yet he had discovered the names of only 
 four of her paramours, to wit: William B. Parsons, Robert Coveny and another believed to be 
 James Somers, formerly in her employ, and one Lawrence, christian name unknown. Later in 
 a petition to the Vice Chancellor he asked to be allowed to amend his answer so as to include 
 in the list four more individuals: Charles Parry, Patrick Delehanty, Charles Saunders and a 
 Mr. Connor, alleging "that ever since the commencement of the suit he had been confined to 
 his chamber from ill health, except on one or two occasions when he had for not more than one 
 hour at each time with great difficulty gone abroad," owing to which he had embarrassment 
 and difficulty in conducting the defence. It is appalling to think to what possible size the list 
 might have grown had his activities not been restrained by sickness. Mme. Burr came back at 
 him furiously and made a sweeping denial of every accusation and charged that his state- 
 ments were false in every particular and were fabricated for wicked and corrupt purposes; that 
 Robert Coverney was simply a servant in her employ during 1833, whom she discharged for 
 intoxication and that he had unsuccessfully sued her for wages, since which he had been hos- 
 tile and slanderous and was helped thereto by Aaron Burr's money, and as for James Somers 
 or Saunders, also Charles Saunders, and Mr. Connor, she had never heard of them. William 
 B. Parsons swore he had not been on friendly terms with her for eight years, and Patrick 
 Delehanty swore that he was simply her coachman for seven months and saw nothing to lead 
 him to believe or suspect her of unchastity. Three inferior people, raised in her own family, 
 testified to her good character. And so the white washing went on. Not content, however, with 
 such clearance and still stung to madness by his impeachment, the virtuous beldame, still 
 aflame with hatred, lost control of herself and wildly proclaimed "as to the allegation con- 
 tained in said petition that the said defendant had not cohabited with this deponent since the 
 time therein specified, this deponent saith that shortly after marriage with said Aaron Burr 
 his lewd and polluted habits became so manifest to the deponent, that for the protection of 
 her health and reputation she was compelled to decline all association with him." With a 
 wealth of accumulated wisdom she was certainly competent to express herself upon this sub- 
 ject, but her vulgar frankness makes the truth of her evidence questionable. The litigation 
 which for a time was so vigorously contested by both parties now dragged. The defence was 
 crippled. Burr was sick and they could not proceed. Counsel had no means at hand to refute 
 the charges of perjury and subornation of perjury and the Vice-Chancellor, upon the evidence 
 submitted, held that the complainant had proven that there was not the least truth in the 
 recriminatory charges which were set on foot for the worst of motives, and referred the case to 
 Philo B. Ruggles, Master in Chancery, who took the testimony of Maria Johnson, of Newark, 
 one time servant of Mme. Jumel, who, like her son, Colonel Craft asserted, was half witted. 
 Under oath she said "that in the first week in August in the year 1833 she saw the above 
 named defendant, Aaron Burr, in bed with Jane McManus at a house in Jersey City. This was 
 in the evening of Friday of that week. 
 
 This deponent further saith that on the Saturday of the same week she saw the said 
 Aaron Burr in the act of committing adultery with the said Jane McManus. This was at the 
 house of Aaron Burr in Jersey City. The said adultery was committed by them on a settee in 
 
 < 68 } 
 
the back room of the first floor of this house. Deponent saw them through the blinds of the 
 window of the room. Deponent turned the blinds, by which means she was able to see them. 
 This was between two and three o'clock in the afternoon." 
 Cross-Examination by Charles O'Connor. 
 
 "I came upstairs to fetch a pitcher of hot water to Col. Burr through the front room and 
 she saw JaneMcManus on the settee and Col. Burr had his hand under her clothes and she saw 
 her nakedness. They were sitting and Col. Burr had his trousers down. She saw Jane Mc- 
 Manus with her clothes off. Col. Burr with his hand under them and his pantaloons down. 
 She said : 'Oh la ! Mercy save us ! ! !'. They rang the bell accidentally." 
 
 Burr swore that her statements were wholly untrue and filed a petition to examine the 
 corespondent, Jane McManus, who in the interval had removed to Matagorda, Texas. The 
 inquiry, however, was never taken for Burr abandoned his defence by a stipulation filed in 
 Court, Oct. 24, 1835, which allowed the original bill to be taken pro confesso. It was a volun- 
 tary, gracious act of gallantry on his part and he lifted the stigma from her name, as far as he 
 could, by an admission of personal guilt which in this instance, at least, was destitute of truth. 
 He realized he was beaten. Sick and weary of life's long struggle, of what possible avail was it 
 to an octogenarian to attain success ! So to fate and Madame he bowed. Two months later he 
 was dead. 
 
 The introduction of this lewd story may be in questionable taste but its general accept- 
 ance at the time shows the degree of hostility felt towards Burr. He had no saintly past to fall 
 back upon, yet the unbelievable was believed. While the testimony of a well coached half wit, 
 grown to believe in the truth of her own tale, was the ground for the annulment of his marri- 
 age, yet no credence was given to the fact that he was too sick a man to rally vigorously to his 
 own defence and that he was paralyzed from his hips down. Even the Vice Chancellor, who 
 had to find for the complainant, fails to show the least sentiment of "justice tempered with 
 mercy," but rather a too ready acceptance of the old saw — "give a dog a bad name and they 
 will hang him." 
 
 i 69 } 
 
The Jumel Portraits 
 
 0 round out the history of the Burr Portraits I give here the amazing story 
 of Mme. Jumel based upon my personal interviews with Colonel William 
 Dusenbury Craft and upon the printed statements of that careful historian, 
 William Henry Shelton, Esquire, made in his Jumel article in the New York 
 Times, May 13, 1928, and in his History Of The Roger Morris House, at 157th 
 Street and St. Nicholas Avenue, New York City. This imposing example of colonial archi- 
 tecture of which he treats is now owned by the Colonial Dames, and is known as the Jumel 
 Mansion. During the Revolutionary War it was the headquarters of Washington at Harlem 
 Heights, and later it became the property and the home of Mme. Jumel wherein was enacted 
 the latter half of her life's ambitions and tragic drama. It was here she married Colonel Burr, 
 a man twenty years her senior. Colonel William Dusenbury Craft, who remembered her well, 
 said she was always a skillful adventuress and a devil in petticoats; a harlot turned respectable 
 in her old age. He probably was right. She led Burr a sorry chase for a short time. That the 
 poor old man should ever have touched her with a pitch fork is astounding; that he should 
 ever have married her is still more amazing, even allowing that all the infirmities and ini- 
 quities laid to his door are true. To be sure Mme. Jumel did the courting, not he. After Burr's 
 success in the great Eden case her large yellow-bodied coach, with footmen and outriders, 
 frequently carried her to his residence in Jay Street where he had his law office and where, 
 under pretext of legal guidance, she literally besieged him. The story of reluctance on her part 
 and coercion on his part is a myth; the marriage was deliberately planned by her. "It has been 
 said that across the proceedings toward clearing the way lay the shadow of a crime. If so, it 
 was followed by remorse that steadily developed into insanity." She must have possessed 
 physical attractions in her youth and mental grasp, for despite the fact that her gentleman 
 father was unknown and her mother, though married to a sailor, was a woman of the town of 
 Providence, Rhode Island, and her own early life one of waywardness and immorality, Eliza 
 Bowen attached to herself many of the celebrities of her day who were known, in the limited 
 modern acceptance of the term, as her friends. She even made an alliance with Stephen Jumel, 
 a rich though emotional French merchant, of New York City. To be sure this marriage was 
 accomplished by a trick. The story runs that the future Mme. Jumel represented that she was 
 about to die, posed as a penitent Magdalen and sought spiritual rehabilitation in marriage. 
 Proof of her impending dissolution was supplied by an unscrupulous physician and the need 
 and method of her reformation by an acquiescent priest. Then the impetuous Jumel was ap- 
 pealed to, and furthered her salvation by joining her in belated wedlock. Mme. Jumel then 
 made a prompt recovery, and her recently acquired husband, Monsieur Jumel, accommodat- 
 ingly remained obedient and hypnotized. On the 1st of June, 1815, they sailed for Europe, in 
 the brig Eliza, (named for herself), and by a happy revolution of the wheel of fortune, on July 
 10, she was solicited to be of some anticipated service to Napoleon in the accommodation of 
 
 { 70 }• 
 
Mde de la Croix 1797 St. Memin 
 
_ WTVt«dH*c.3«.rt* At ft 
 
 Imf U* *• how fttro * F»r « 
 
 Madam Jlmel 
 
 Lithograph 
 
Madam Jumel Henry Inman 
 
 Dr. George L. Laporte 
 
members of his staff on her vessel, in exchange for which General Betrand, representing the 
 Emperor whom she never saw, presented her, it is said in the Emperor's name, one of the im- 
 perial carriages to which was annexed the Emperor's campaign trunk and his travelling clock. 
 They were more likely discards than gifts, but the imperturbable Eliza, after triumphantly 
 journeying to Paris in the chariot, had the clock decorated with the following inscription: 
 A. Mme. E. B. Jumel — Paris — 1815 — Napoleon, and thereafter grew large in reflected glory. 
 Her life in Paris was a small riot brought to a summary termination, at the end of fifteen 
 months, by the indiscreet display of her devotion to the dethroned Napoleon. She blazoned 
 his insignia, as modified by herself, (the spread wings of the eagle, a quiver filled with labelled 
 arrows, surmounted by a laurel wreath) upon the panels of her carriage and drove it through 
 the streets of Paris and, still not content, had it executed as a carving for a household orna- 
 ment. The inevitable followed. The French King Louis XVIII, for this affront, ordered her 
 arrest, imprisonment and expulsion, and the relatively obscure, social American outcast, who 
 had been dissipating, at a furious rate, her husband's fortune in largesse to the impoverished 
 French nobility, was returned (1816) to her own native shores. Washington Heights soon grew 
 monotonous and five years later (1821), with the apparent permission of Louis XVIII, she 
 was again installed in Paris living anew the same luxurious, prodigal life and afloat the highest 
 court functions. Four years of further plunging financially wrecked the indulgent Stephen 
 Jumel and May, 1826, found Madame at home once more to be followed two years later by 
 her husband. "Stephen Jumel reached home an old man, not very welcome, and wholly de- 
 pendent on his wife, who through a power of attorney, held title to all the property that had 
 been his. He died on May 22, 1832, and his death caused another wave of gossip. He fell from 
 a hay cart, was taken up insensible and bled, after the practice of the doctors of that period. 
 The next morning he was found dead with the bandage off his arm. He had bled to death. 
 
 "The only member of his family besides Mme. Jumel, was a child, Mary Marilla Stever. 
 In 1873, after a lapse of forty-one years, Mary Marilla, then Mrs. Mary M. Mumford, was 
 brought from Michigan to testify in a will case. Under oath she stated that she had been sent 
 away before the death of Stephen Jumel. When asked if she went away before he was hurt, she 
 replied: T left the house between the time he was hurt and the time when he died.' " Then 
 Burr's marriage took place. It lasted but a short time — a matter of a few months — and ended 
 in his abrupt departure. In the face of the suspicions attending Stephen Jumel's death perhaps 
 it was fortunate for him that the rupture occurred, for with a clamoring marriage instinct, a 
 vaulting ambition for high station and a tottering intellect she could have easily become a 
 reincarnated Lucretia Borgia. She would not then be likely to allow aught to block her pro- 
 gress. Burr had been dead but a year when "she conceived her most ambitious matrimonial 
 adventure." Prince Louis Napoleon had arrived in Hoboken where he put up at a small tavern 
 too poor to quarter himself in New York City. He was young and an aspirant to the French 
 throne. Here was her chance. Why should she, Mme. Jumel, not share it with him. Familiar 
 with his native tongue and his social set it was easy for her to regale him at a banquet. The 
 acceptance was prompt; the r. s. v. p's were plentiful, but Madame failed to qualify as hos- 
 tess. In her effort to look beautiful she had used a depilatory on an incipient moustache and 
 chin whiskers with such caustic effect that the pain and swelling, which promptly followed, 
 
 i 71 } 
 
put her out of the running; all thoughts of the Prince and the feast were abandoned in the all 
 absorbing search for relief and from future disfigurement. And with that misfortune went her 
 chances for the throne. She concerns us no more. Her punishment was great — she was per- 
 mitted to live until she reached the age of ninety-two years, during the latter part of which 
 her over toppled intellect had full sway. 
 
 Couple what I have written above with what I have written concerning her in the small 
 Chapter on Burr's Natural Children and enough has been said of her faults ; virtues she had 
 none. 
 
 Her first likeness was made, in 1797, by St. Memin, while she was known as Miss St. 
 Croix. The engraving certainly does not make her a phenomenal beauty; her features are 
 small and her head top heavy with a big chignon. It is reproduced in Dexter's work and is pre- 
 served in the various collections of St. Memin engravings. 
 
 Her second likeness was made many years later. It occurs in the shape of a large litho- 
 graph, which should by common practice, be a copy of an oil painting, but if such a painting 
 ever existed, I have never heard of it. This lithograph was made in Paris, in 1852, just before 
 she went to Rome and sat for the large picture next to be considered. At the bottom of the 
 lithograph is printed: Madam, Widow of the Late Aaron Burr Vice President of the United 
 States, formerly Madam Jumel. And it is said that the copy in the Bibliotheque Nationale, 
 Paris, is further inscribed after this title with the words, the Heroine of New York. This lauda- 
 tion she had the intelligence to remove from the prints that were circulated in the United 
 States. 
 
 This second likeness is a shameless idealization. If there ever was a dissemblance to real 
 life it is here. The house devil appears the street angel. If the statement made in her obituary 
 is correct, that she was born in 1769, she was eighty-three years of age when this lithograph 
 was made, a statement belied by her personal appearance and the fact that octogenarians 
 were little likely to travel to Europe in days when the facilities were much limited. If she were 
 in her ninety-second year, when she died in 1865, she still would be aged seventy-eight at the 
 date of the production of the lithograph. Setting aside these unsatisfying dates, it would be 
 safe to venture that Madam Jumel was then about seventy years of age. She sits in an arm 
 chair, full face, knee-length, richly gowned, both hands displayed, and a lace veil covering her 
 head and falling off both shoulders to below her waist. Her head is slightly inclined to the left 
 and she radiates sanctity. The spirit of resignation, meekness and gentleness possesses her. 
 Placidity is outdone, and she is prepared to meet her Heavenly Father self-satisfied with a life 
 of good deeds. Perhaps Jezebel had repented ! 
 
 Two years later she had painted her third likeness, the excessively large portrait of her- 
 self, with two children, which now hangs in the entrance hall of the Jumel House. It bears the 
 label: Portrait of Madame Jumel, William Inglis Chase and Eliza Jumel Chase (the late Mrs. 
 Caryl). By Alcide de Ercole. Rome 1854. Gift of Louis V. Bell. As this painting has some 
 merit, is accessible to the public and will be reproduced in Mr. Shelton's work, no further 
 allusion is made to it here. 
 
 Still another, a fourth, portrait of Madame Jumel exists. Whether the painting should pre- 
 cede or follow the last two described is problematical. It is a small cabinet painting by the 
 
 i 72 > 
 
American artist Henry Inman. It lacks the grace and elegance of the two European paintings, 
 but possesses a sincerity which is convincing of its truthfulness as a likeness. It conforms to 
 our knowledge of the woman and the epoch in which she lived. She is painted as a rather 
 homely old soul, with a sly, argumentative, self-satisfied expression. Her medium-sized cap 
 liberates, on either side, two masses of long curly hair which covers her ears, and contracts the 
 width of her face. With little imagination you could believe her blear-eyed. C ertainly she does 
 not look lovable. She wears a black dress with a lace fichu, and is seated in an arm chair. Her 
 two hands are displayed, and in the right she holds a letter signed Henry Inman; a method of 
 signing he commonly employed. The picture is in the collection of Dr. George L. Laporte, of 
 129 East 91st Street, New York City, where I saw it April 6th, 1923, and when he kindly fur- 
 nished me with its history: Stephen Burr baptized October 3, 1698, of Redding, Connecticut, 
 and the Reverend Aaron Burr, born January 4th, 1716, were sons of Daniel Burr. Stephen 
 Burr had a daughter Rebecca Burr, who married Seth Sanford, of Redding, Connecticut, 
 while the Reverend Aaron Burr, (Stephen's brother), became the father of Colonel Aaron 
 Burr. To Ebenezer Sanford, the son of his first cousin Rebecca Burr Sanford, Colonel Aaron 
 Burr gave this portrait of Madam Jumel. Under what circumstances it was presented is 
 unknown. 
 
 This Ebenezer Sanford, who acquired the painting from Colonel Burr, had a great-grand- 
 daughter Elizabeth Noyes, who sold the portrait, directly to Dr. Laporte, with the preceding 
 history. 
 
 i 73 } 
 
Obituary 
 
 Madam Eliza B. Jumel 
 
 New York Times, July 18, 1865 
 
 mzmm 
 
 SINGLE sentence in this morning's Times serves to awaken many memories 
 of the past, and revive remembrances of men and parties long since crumbled 
 or forgotten. Thus it reads: "Died, on Sunday morning, July 16, at her late 
 residence, Washington Heights, Madam Eliza B. Jumel, in the 92d year of 
 her age." 
 
 Madam Jumel, whose death is chronicled above, was a very singular person, about whose 
 name twined many marvelous stories, and with whose history the greatest men of colonial and 
 Revolutionary days were intimately connected. According to one historian, she was born of 
 an English mother, Mrs. Capet, in the cabin of a French frigate, which in the year of our Lord 
 1769, was carrying troops to the West Indies from La Brest. The mother died as the child 
 drew the first breath of life. Somewhat embarrassed by the tender charge, the Captain con- 
 cluded to keep her, but afterward when driven into Newport, R. I., harbor, he placed her in 
 the custody of an elderly lady named Thompson who agreed to take good care of her. Mrs. 
 Thompson was a good woman, and many clergymen visited her comparatively humble dwell- 
 ing, so that the early years of the little one were passed amid good influence. 
 
 Many of His Britannic Majesty's officers dwelt in Newport. Among them was a certain 
 Col. P. Croix, whose personal appearance is reported to have been most taking — whose posi- 
 tion in society was excellent. The Colonel met Miss Capet when she was about seventeen 
 years of age, and fell in love with her pretty face and pleasant figure. She reciprocated the 
 tender passion, which eventuated in an elopement, the indiscreet but entirely happy pair pro- 
 ceeding to New York, where the lady lodged at a "handsome wooden structure," but recently 
 standing where now rests the north wing of Stewart's marble palace. 
 
 Brought at once into contact with the best people in the city, the lady became a cultured 
 woman of the world, fond of its pleasures, versed in its intrigues, interested in the cabals of 
 politicians, and espousing with ardor one side or the other of the continual military emeutes 
 with which the latter days of the eighteenth century were so cursed in New York City. She 
 was present at the opening of the first session of Congress at Philadelphia; in September, 
 1774, and at the inauguration of Washington as President, she created a decided impression 
 by her beauty and general air of savoir faire. She was about twenty years of age then, and very 
 elegant in person and distinguished in bearing. Mme. Jumel first met Aaron Burr when he 
 ranked as a Captain in the army, and was greatly impressed with his power and expression. 
 She was even then intimate with Benedict Arnold, whose wife she fancied her best friend, and 
 with Patrick Henry, in whose breast of reserve she started a dangerous fire of love and pas- 
 sion ; but forgetful of those noted men, and of the scores who bent willingly before her shrine, 
 
 { 74 } 
 
she wrote thus of the man who, in after years, was destined to be her lord, if not her master. 
 She says: 
 
 "Capt. Aaron Burr, in the hey-day of his youth, as he now was, appeared to me the per- 
 fection of manhood personified. He was beneath the common size of men, only five feet and a 
 half high, but his figure and form had been fashioned in the models of the graces. Petite as he 
 comparatively was, he had a martial appearance, and displayed in all his movements those 
 accomplishments which are only acquired in the camp and embellished in the boudoir of the 
 graces. In a word, he was a combined model of Mars and Apollo. His eye was of the deepest 
 black, and sparkled with an incomprehensible brilliancy when he smiled ; but if enraged, its 
 power was absolutely terrific." Into whatever female society he chanced, by the fortune of 
 war or the vicissitudes of private life to be cast, he conquered all hearts without an effort; and, 
 until he became deeply involved in the cares of State, and the vexations incident to the politi- 
 cal arena, I do not believe a female capable of the gentle emotions of love ever looked upon 
 him without loving him. Wherever he went he was petted and caressed by our sex, and hun- 
 dreds vied with each other in a continuous struggle to offer him some testimonial of their 
 adulation. And yet, with all this popularity in the polite circles, he never took advantage of 
 his position, and I do not believe that any female ever had cause to complain of his seductive 
 wiles, perfidy or injustice. 
 
 The casual meeting between the two took place at the rooms of Lady Stirling, and re- 
 sulted in Miss Capet's acceptance of an invitation to accompany Capt. Burr that evening to 
 the theatre. On the way to the house, Burr asked permission to stop for a friend, and so doing 
 he brought into the carriage and introduced to Miss Capet as his friend the afterward cele- 
 brated Margaret Moncrief. A desperate flirtation followed, but beyond that nothing of any 
 moment occurred between them, and he soon after was called away, so that for years they did 
 not meet. 
 
 Continuing her gay career, Miss Capet met and knew intimately the great leaders of the 
 Revolutionary struggle : Thomas Jefferson was a frequent visitor at her house, and a friend- 
 ship formed between them which ceased only with his death, in 1826. Old Ben Franklin called 
 her his "Fairy Queen," and was on terms of such intimacy with her as permitted him to salute 
 her hps in the presence of friends. Gen. Knox was likewise a worshipper before her, and La- 
 fayette was greatly charmed. That such a woman as this should have gone through escapades 
 and adventures is but natural; that she should take pleasure and pride in bringing men of the 
 loftiest position to her feet is quite understandable; that her reputation should materially 
 suffer by the scandal of her rivals and the jealous tattlings of her female friends is what one 
 would expect; but that she should finally accept the hand of, and marry, a quiet, hard-work- 
 ing, adventurous trader, is a vagary difficult of explanation. She did it, however. In the early 
 days of this century she was wooed and won by a Frenchman named Stephen Jumel, who 
 landing here poor, made an immense fortune in the wine trade. He became noted for his 
 wealth, liberality and kind-hearted benevolence, and singular foresight in business matters. 
 Of him our worthy but eccentric fellow-citizen, Grant Thorburn, said : 
 
 "Stephen Jumel, a Frenchman, was among our early merchant princes. One morning, 
 about 10 o'clock, in the year 1806, this gentleman, in company with William Bayard, Harmon 
 
 { 75 > 
 
LeRoy, Archibald Gracie, Gen. Clarkson, and some dozen others, was reading and discussing 
 the news just received from Liverpool in the extraordinary short passage of seven weeks. The 
 matter mostly concerned Napoleon I and the battle of Wagram. While thus engaged, a car- 
 man's horse backed his cart into the Whitehall slip. The cart was got out, but the horse was 
 drowned, and every one began pitying the poor carman's ill-luck. Jumel instantly arose, and 
 placing a ten-dollar bill between his thumb and finger, and holding it aloft while it fluttered 
 in the breeze, and with his hat in the other hand he walked through the length and breadth of 
 the crowd, exclaiming 'How much you pity the poor man? I pity him ten dollars. How much 
 you pity him?' By this ingenious and noble coup he collected in a few moments about seventy 
 dollars, which he gave over at once to the unfortunate and fortunate carman. This has since 
 been imitated often, but of its originality with him there can be no question." 
 
 Shortly after this marriage, the downfall of the great Napoleon occurred, and the paci- 
 fication of Europe was secured. This seemed a favourable opportunity for the wealthy French- 
 man, who had long since retired from active business, to take his beautiful and accomplished 
 wife to the centre of continental splendor. They went to Paris, purchased a magnificent estab- 
 lishment, and under the social patronage of Lafayette and his contemporaries, Madame Jumel 
 became as noted in the sabns of the French capital as in the parlors of the western metropolis. 
 Her wit and talent placed her in the very van of the frequenters of the court, and while she 
 never failed to make continual conquests, we are not of those who believe the slanderers of her 
 reputation. Gaiety is not always quiet, frivolity not always the exponent of heartlessness, and 
 despite Madame Jumel's wonderful gaiety and never-ceasing frivolity, she was deep and 
 shrewd and able enough to maintain her position against the combined attacks of those who 
 envied her. 
 
 Her fife of prodigious prodigality made sad inroads upon her husband's fortune, and he 
 became low spirited. She rallied him, but investigation demonstrated the comparative wreck 
 of his estate, and she failed to arouse him to the necessary exertion. Self reliant, bold, inde- 
 pendent and clear sighted, she broke up their establishment in Paris, and returned alone to 
 New York in 1822. Resolved to mend what she had broken, she retired to an estate of her own 
 on the island, and devoted herself to the recuperation of her husband's fortune with such sig- 
 nal success that when, in 1828, at the age of sixty-four, he returned to this country, he found 
 himself possessed of means at once abundant and satisfactory. They lived happily together 
 until his death, which resulted in his seventieth year, from an accidental fall. 
 
 At this time, Col. Burr was practicing law, with great success, in New York. His legal 
 position was in the front rank; triumph succeeded triumph and although old in years, he 
 seemed but in the prime of life. There was talk of cholera in the city, and Madame Jumel, who 
 had large interests in real estate determined upon a carriage tour in the country. Desiring, 
 however, to take legal advice in some matters before leaving, she determined to consult Col. 
 Burr, whose preeminence in real estate law was universally conceded. It was a long time since 
 she had seen him. Years had changed them both; oceans and events had separated them; 
 marriage and its consequences had turned the thoughts of each in other directions ; and now, 
 when the one was an old man and the other a well advanced woman, they were to meet. He 
 was perfect in all the subtleties of social fife; she was the exponent, ne plus ultra, of fashionable 
 
 { 76 > 
 
life. The one could not hope to blind, mislead, or seduce the other. His office was at No. 23 
 Nassau street, and she drove thither to consult him. Never forgetful of eye, or feature, or 
 figure, he recognized her in a moment, and, as Parton in his Life of Aaron Burr, says: 
 
 "He received her in his courtliest manner, complimented her with admirable tact, listened 
 with soft deference to her statement. He was the ideal man of business — confidential, self- 
 possessed, polite — giving his client the flattering impression that the faculties of his whole soul 
 were concentrated upon the affair in hand. She was charmed, yet feared him. He took the 
 papers, named the day when his opinion would be ready and handed her to her carriage with 
 winning grace. At seventy-eight years of age he was still straight, active, agile, fascinating. 
 
 On the appointed day she sent to his office a relative, a student of law, to receive his opin- 
 ion. This young gentleman, timid and inexperienced, had an immense opinion of Burr's tal- 
 ents; had heard all good and all evil of him; supposed him to be, at least, the acutest of possible 
 men. He went. Burr behaved to him in a manner so exquisitely pleasing, that, to this hour, he 
 has the liveliest recollection of the scene. No topic was introduced but such as were familiar 
 and interesting to young men. His manners were such as this age of slangy familiarity cannot 
 so much as imagine. The young gentleman went home to Madame Jumel only to extol and 
 glorify him. 
 
 Madame and her party began their journey, revisiting Ballston, whither, in former times, 
 she had been wont to go in a chariot drawn by eight horses; visiting Saratoga, then in the be- 
 ginning of its celebrity, where, in exactly ten minutes after her arrival, the decisive lady 
 bought a house and all it contained. Returning to New York to find that her mansion had been 
 despoiled by robbers in her absence. She lived for a while in the city. Col. Burr called upon the 
 young gentleman who had been Madame's messenger, and after their acquaintance had rip- 
 ened, said to him: "Come into my office; I can teach you more in one year than you can learn 
 in ten, in an ordinary way." The proposition being submitted to Madame Jumel, she, anxious 
 for the young man's advancement gladly and gratefully consented. He entered the office. 
 Burr kept him close at his books. He did, teach him more in a year than he could have learned 
 in ten in an ordinary way. Burr lived then in Jersey City. His office swarmed with applicants 
 for aid, and he seemed to have quite lost the power of refusing. In no other respects, bodily or 
 mental, did he exhibit signs of decrepitude. 
 
 Some months passed on without his again meeting Madame Jumel. At the suggestion of 
 the student, who felt exceedingly grateful to Burr for the solicitude with which he assisted his 
 studies, Madame Jumel invited Col. Burr to dinner. It was a grand banquet, at which he dis- 
 played all the charms of his manner and shone to conspicuous advantage. On handing to 
 dinner the giver of the feast, he said: "I give you my hand, Madame: my heart has long been 
 yours." This was supposed to be merely a compliment and was little remarked at the time. 
 Col. Burr called upon the lady : called frequently ; became ever warmer in his attentions ; pro- 
 posed, at length, and was refused. He still plied his suit, however, and obtained at last, not the 
 lady's consent, but an undecided no. Improving his advantage on the instant, he said, in a 
 jocular manner, that he should bring out a clergyman to Fort Washington on a certain day, 
 and there he would once more solicit her hand. 
 
 He was as good as his word. At the time appointed, he drove out in his gig to the lady's 
 
 i 77 > 
 
country residence, accompanied by Dr. Bogart, the very clergyman who, just fifty years be- 
 fore, had married him to the mother of his Theodosia. The lady was embarrassed, and still 
 refused. But then the scandal! And, after all, why not? Her estate needed a vigilant guardian, 
 and the old house was lonely. After much hesitation, she at length consented to be dressed and 
 to receive her visitors. And she was married. The ceremony was witnessed only by the mem- 
 bers of Madame Jumel's family and by the eight servants of the household, who peered 
 eagerly in at the doors and windows. The ceremony over, Mrs. Burr ordered supper. Some 
 bins of M. Jumel's wine cellar, that had not been opened for half a century, were laid under 
 contribution. The little party was a very merry one. The parson, in particular, it is remem- 
 bered, was in the highest spirits, overflowing with humor and anecdote. Except for Col. Burr's 
 great age (which was not apparent) the match seemed not an unwise one. The lurking fear he 
 had of being a poor and homeless old man was put to rest. She had a companion who had been 
 ever agreeable and her estate a steward than whom no one living was supposed to be more 
 competent. 
 
 As a remarkable circumstance connected with this marriage, it may be just mentioned 
 that there was a woman in New York who had aspired to the hand of Col. Burr, and who, 
 when she heard of his union with another, wrung her hands and shed tears. A feeling of that 
 nature can seldom, since the creation of man, have been excited by the marriage of a man on 
 the verge of fourscore. 
 
 A few days after the wedding, the happy pair paid a visit to Connecticut, of which State 
 a nephew of Col. Burr's was then Governor. They were received with attention. At Hartford, 
 Burr advised his wife to sell out her shares in the bridge over the Connecticut at that place and 
 invest the proceeds in real estate. She ordered them sold. The stock was in demand and the 
 shares brought several thousand dollars. The purchaser offered to pay her the money, but she 
 said, "No; pay it to my husband." To him, accordingly it was paid, and he had it sewed up in 
 his pocket, a prodigious bulk, and brought it to New York and deposited it in his own bank to 
 his own credit. 
 
 Texas was then beginning to attract the tide of immigration, which, a few years later, set 
 so strongly thither. Burr had always taken a great interest in that country. Persons with 
 whom he had been variously connected in life had a scheme on foot for settling a large colony 
 of Germans on a tract of land in Texas. A brig had been chartered and the project was in a 
 state of forwardness, when the possession of a sum of money enabled Burr to buy shares in the 
 enterprise. The greater part of the money which he had brought from Hartford was invested 
 in this way. It proved a total loss. The time had noty et come for immigration to Texas. The 
 Germans became discouraged and separated, and, to complete the failure of the scheme, the 
 title of the lands, in the confusion of the times, proved defective. Meanwhile, Madame, who 
 was a remarkable thrifty woman, with a talent for the management of property, wondered 
 that her husband made no allusion to the subject of the investment, for the Texas speculation 
 had not been mentioned to her. She caused him to be questioned on the subject. He begged to 
 intimate to the lady's messenger that it was no affair of hers and he requested him to remind 
 the lady that she now had a husband to manage her affairs and one who would manage them. 
 
 Coolness between the husband and wife was the result of this colloquy, then came remon- 
 
 i 78 } 
 
strances. Then estrangement. Burr got into the habit of remaining in his office in the city. 
 Then, partial reconciliation. Full of schemes and speculations to the last, without retaining 
 any of his former ability to act successful, he lost more money, and more, and more. The 
 patience of the lady was exhausted. She filed a complaint accusing him of infidelity and pray- 
 ing that he might have no more control or authority over her affairs. The accusation is now 
 known to have been groundless; nor indeed, at the time was it seriously believed. It was used 
 merely as the most convenient legal mode of depriving him of control over her property. At 
 first he answered the complaint vigorously, but afterward he allowed it to go by default and 
 the proceedings were carried no further. A few short weeks of happiness, followed by a few 
 alternate months of alternate estrangement and reconciliation, and this union, that begun not 
 inauspiciously, was, in effect, though never in law, dissolved. 
 
 Since then Madame Jumel, who has never resumed her late husband's name, has resided 
 in her home at Washington Heights, comparatively alone. She knew but few, and cared not to 
 extend her list of friends. She died on Sunday, possessed of considerable property which her 
 grandchildren will doubtless inherit. Her funeral will be today." 
 
 W. L. Andrews had thirty copies of this obituary reprinted in a brochure of sixteen pages 
 with a frontispiece of Madame Jumel. One of the copies he gave to the New York Historical 
 Society. Taken in its entirety it is a colossal distortion of fact and an assemblage of historical 
 lies. 
 
 i 79 } 
 
The Blennerhasset Miniatures 
 
 ARM AN BLENNERHASSETT descended from the English nobility through 
 a long line of ancestors, one of whom, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 
 settled in Ireland and became his direct progenitor. In 1796, he married Mar- 
 garet, daughter of Capt. Robert Agnew, of County Durham, England, lieut- 
 governor of the Isle of Man, the son of General James Agnew, of Revolution- 
 ary fame. The bride was eighteen, the groom was thirty-one. Her mother, Catharine Agnew, 
 was this Harman Blennerhassett's own sister, and she, the bride, thus became his own blood 
 niece. The alliance was discountenanced by the family and she was disinherited, while the 
 blame was laid largely to the man's door, because of his greater age. He disposed of his estates 
 for $160,000, but there still remained, secured to himself and wife, other small revenue pro- 
 ducing properties. Blennerhassett and his wife then turned to America where they landed 
 Aug. 1, 1796, and where shortly they bought the island in the Ohio River which bears their 
 name, and upon which was erected a mansion, all calling for a disbursement of about $60,000. 
 This was occupied by the Blennerhassetts for some years. Thence they moved to a thousand 
 acre plantation on the Mississippi, adjacent to Port Gibson, where they dwelt twelve years, 
 and then again onwards to Montreal. In 1821, he returned to England, hoping to reestablish 
 himself in good name and fortune. In 1824, he assembled his family about him in England, where 
 after ten years of disappointment, he died, Feb. 2, 1831, at Port Pierre, Isle of Guernsey, in his 
 sixty-sixth year. His wife returned to America in 1840, and died, at her own residence, 75 
 Greenwich Street, New York City, June 16, 1842, in her sixty-fourth year. The Blennerhas- 
 setts had two daughters who died in childhood, an eldest son Dominick, a degenerate, a sec- 
 ond son, Harman, of the same type as Dominick, and a youngest son, Joseph Lewis Blenner- 
 hassett, who, with his wife, followed his mother to this country in 1841, and who was a gentle- 
 man, a lawyer, a linguist, a peripatetic school teacher, and whose life ended in dissipation, in 
 Missouri, Dec. 8, 1862. His two small sons predeceased him, and with him this line of the 
 Blennerhassetts became extinct. 
 
 The names of Aaron Burr and Harman Blennerhassett are interwoven in a tale of great 
 misfortune. Disaster followed their acquaintance. The peace and prosperity which was Blen- 
 nerhassett's gave way to unhappiness and ruin. Burr was the hypnotist ; Blennerhassett the 
 subject. When one fell, the other succumbed and a life of disappointment followed both. Blen- 
 nerhassett's career might still have been one of suffering, even if Burr had failed to cross his 
 path, for the ostracism that followed his marriage and a progeny that sank to so low a level 
 would naturally entail much unhappiness. That it was accentuated by the failure of Burr's 
 ambitious plans there can be no doubt. The details of it, however, belong to the historian — 
 with the portraits we are alone interested. 
 
 In September, 1885, I was in attendance upon George Morton, Esq., of 46 West 127th 
 Street, New York City, a gentleman of historical and artistic attainments, who enthusias- 
 
 { 80 > 
 
Mb. and Mrs. Harman Blennerhassett 
 
 Dr. John E. Slillwell 
 
 Daguerreotypes 
 
tically drew my attention to his recent purchase of a George Washington portrait from a dis- 
 cussion of which we turned to my hobby, the Burr portraits. His daughter, Mrs. Benjamin F. 
 McClain observed that while she could add nothing to my Burr information, she could con- 
 tribute something concerning the Blennerhassetts, at the same time showing me a unique ring 
 upon her finger which came to her under the following circumstances. Her husband's father 
 was Orlando D. McClain, the owner of a well-known hardware shop at 167 Spring Street, New 
 York City, where he also resided. He was a man of probity and benevolence, and upon the 
 creation of the Ladies Home Missionary Society, of New York City, about 1852, he became 
 one of the mainstays of this body, acting as its treasurer, and in various other capacities. Tne 
 Society directed its attention to the district called The Five Points, a veritable sink of in- 
 iquity according to sociologists. In one of its tenements lived Harman Blennerhassett, Jr. , in 
 rooms neglected and squalid, and upon whose door was a tin sign marked Harman Blenner- 
 hassett, painter and counsellor at law. As an artist his low standard productions found a small 
 market and some were presented by him to the McClains; as a lawyer he probably failed of 
 any clientele. Mr. Blennerhassett reluctantly accepted the attentions of the well disposed 
 ladies, but greatly appreciated the kindness of Mr. McClain, to whom he gave several sou- 
 venirs, among them the ring alluded to. He was taken ill and placed in a hospital, and when 
 his end was approaching, he gave Mr. McClain his few possessions, including letters and fine 
 miniatures of his father and mother, each set in pearls, with the request that they be for- 
 warded to his only surviving relative, a brother living in St. Louis, Missouri. Before Mr. 
 McClain had time to forward these effects to their destination, a gentleman, representing 
 himself as the author of a projected History of West Virginia, called at his house and stated 
 that he was permitted by Mr. McClain to have the Blennerhassett miniatures, daguerreo- 
 typed for use in his forthcoming work. Mrs. McClain unsuspectingly gave them up, only to 
 learn on the return of her husband, that the demand was without his knowledge and fraudu- 
 lent. No clue to the individual was ever obtained. Several years went by, when a package was 
 left at Mr. McClain's house containing, not the original miniatures, but good daguerreotypes 
 of the same. It was simply left without comment. It is from these daguerreotypes, now in my 
 possession, that the accompanying reproductions are made. 
 
 An interesting and truthful contribution — The True Story Of Harman Blennerhassett, 
 By Therese Blennerhassett-Adams, appears in the 62nd volume of the Century Magazine, 
 pp. 351-356, illustrated by the likeness of Harman Blennerhassett, owned by Dr. Martin; and 
 in an article — A RomanticWrong-Doer, by Edgar Fawcett, in The Cosmopolitan, October, 1897, 
 appears a nearly identical likeness of Mr. Blennerhassett, as well as one of his wife Mrs. Blen- 
 nerhassett. The likeness of Mr. Blennerhassett, now owned by Dr. Martin, of Boston, Mas- 
 sachusetts, and that of Mrs. Blennerhassett, whose owner is unknown to me, conform exactly 
 to the two daguerreotypes in my possession. That these miniatures emanate directly from the 
 Blennerhassett family and that these daguerreotypes are reproductions thereof, there can be 
 no doubt. My reproductions fail to show the circle of pearls which encircle both in the daguer- 
 reotypes. I append two letters from Dr. Martin which have an intimate bearing upon this 
 subject and which are self explanatory: 
 
 { 81 } 
 
Nov. 17, 1901. 
 
 Dr. Francis C. Martin, 
 
 27 Dudley St., Roxbury Station, 
 Boston, Mass. 
 Dear Sir — 
 
 I received your letter of Oct. 19 th safely, and you would have heard from me long ago, 
 but I have been at my country place all the past seven weeks, at the bed-side of my only child, 
 who is still critically ill. She is the last of the direct Blennerhassett blood, in this country. I 
 am, together with Lord Kinsale, the nearest descendants (or rather, relatives), of both H. 
 Blennerhassett and his wife, Margaret Agnew, who was his own niece. The two miniatures, of 
 H. B. and his wife, were painted in London in 1796. He always wore his wife's and I have 
 never been able to find it, or hear of it, before. She wore his, with both their hair set into the 
 back. I never heard of Mr. M c Clain, although that was my grandmother's maiden name. The 
 miniature came to me through a cousin of H. B., whose mother and father were kind to his 
 last son, who, on dying left them his few family relics. These eventually came to me, as the 
 proper heir, on my paying a considerable sum of money. I wish you would send me the two 
 miniatures (copies) that you have, by registered mail or express, and permit me to have a copy 
 photographed of Mrs. H. B. I will return your pictures intact, unless you are willing to dis- 
 pose of them, when I should be thankful if you will give me the first chance to purchase them. 
 I will secure and send you a fine photograph of the miniature of H. B. There is the best man 
 I know of, for this work, in Boston, who made a splendid photograph for the Century, and I can 
 get a copy for you. It seems evident that this picture, of yours, of Mrs. B. is a copy of the real 
 miniature of her. I have tried to find it for many years, but have supposed it must have been 
 stolen and the gold and pearls sold, and the picture destroyed. If I can get a photograph of 
 your picture, I can keep up the search, and may eventually discover the original somewhere. 
 I care much more for my great aunt, Mrs. B. than for H. B. and would give a great deal to 
 find her miniature. Pictures of her have been published in magazines, but on trying to follow 
 up the artists, and find out where they got any picture to copy, I could never get any satis- 
 faction, and made up my mind they were all "fancy pictures," and made up out of the artists' 
 fancy. 
 
 Please address me 
 
 Gilmanton Iron Works 
 N. Hamp. 
 
 Very sincerely, 
 
 Francis C. Martin. 
 
 { 82 > 
 
Dr. Francis C. Martin, 
 
 27 Dudley St., Roxbury Station, 
 Boston, Mass. 
 
 Gilmanton Iron Works. 
 N. H. Nov. 21. 
 1901. 
 
 Deai' Dr. 
 
 I am very much obliged to you for the photographs you sent me, and shall value them 
 very much. They are fully as interesting to me, as the daguerreotypes would be, and I would 
 not ask you to part with those. I will get you a fine photograph of my miniature as soon as I 
 can attend to it. Evidently your picture of H. B. is from the miniature, or from a painting 
 taken from it. It is turned the other way (i. e. the head) and seems a good deal rougher than 
 the original. Probably this is from the early photograph, being so much cruder than those of 
 today. You will see at once what I mean, when you get the picture. I have always been in- 
 formed that there were 2 miniatures (H. B. & Mrs. B.) exactly alike in setting, painted at the 
 same time, and that he wore Ins wife's, and she wore Ins. Also, that when he was arrested with 
 Burr, and detained a long time away from home, that her picture was stolen from him. That 
 he tried vainly to recover it, but never did, and thought the pearls and gold were sold, and the 
 picture destroyed. I know all about the Cosmopolitan article. I wrote to the Editor, and he 
 referred me to the artist. I did not hear from him for a long time, and he said the sketches had 
 all been returned to their owners, and he knew nothing about the authenticity of Mrs. B's. 
 picture. Of course your picture, may be an authentic portrait of Mrs. B., but from its shape, 
 I should say it could not be from a companion miniature, to the one of H. B. but must be a 
 picture taken under some other circumstances. I am very glad to have it, anyway. 
 
 I should be glad to hear from you at any time, and if I am in N. York, shall take great 
 pleasure in calling on you, and showing you the miniature, which is the finest one, as a work 
 of art, I have ever seen. 
 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 Francis C. Martin. 
 
 { 83 } 
 
Portrait Of Mary Woolstonecraft 
 
 By 
 Opie 
 
 MONG Burr's possessions was a portrait of Mary Woolstonecraft, the advocate 
 of female suffrage. Colonel Burr probably never met this gifted woman but her 
 writings had aroused in him and his daughter Theodosia such profound ad- 
 miration that the latter sought a likeness of the authoress which her impover- 
 ished and indulgent parent procured. Opie, the distinguished artist, had 
 painted her in a most satisfactory manner. Of this portrait Colonel Burr secured a copy. Allu- 
 sions are made to it in his diary. 
 
 London, Nov. 21, 1808. "This reminds me to say that I have seen the two daughters of 
 Mary Woolstonecraft. They are very fine children (the eldest no longer a child, being now 
 fifteen), but scarcely a discernable trace of the mother. Mr. Godwin has been seven or eight 
 years married to a second wife; a sensible, amiable woman by whom he has a son, a remark- 
 ably fine boy. Your picture of Mary is finer than the original, and he says a better likeness." 
 Letter of Aaron Burr to Theodosia Burr. 
 
 London, Mch. 29, 1809. "... who painted my picture of Mary Woolstonecraft? I wish 
 to have my daughter's copied in the same style." Letter of Aaron Burr to Mrs. M. J. Godwin. 
 
 "William Godwin former husband of Mary Woolstonecraft, but now married to the 
 widow Clement." 
 
 The statement of Mrs. Joshua Webb to Mrs. Ann S. Stephens set forth among The Inter- 
 views that her father presented the copy of Opie's painting to Colonel Burr is probably correct 
 and is strongly verified by one of the preceding quotations from his diary. 
 
 The Woolstonecraft portrait reached America but probably never reached Theodosia. It 
 was owned by Colonel Burr at the date of his decease but was held by Mrs. Webb who prac- 
 tically sold it to Mrs. Ann S. Stephens, from whom it passed to her daughter Ann S. Stephens, 
 who in turn, in gratitude for his many kindnesses, bequeathed it to Mr. James Speyer, the 
 banker of New York City, in whose possession it still remains, and by whose courtesy it is 
 reproduced. Mrs. Stephens' interview discloses quite fully the romantic history of Mrs. Webb, 
 and incidentally makes further allusion to the Godwins and Woolstonecrafts. 
 
 That Burr's portrait of Mary Woolstonecraft is a fine copy by an unknown artist and not 
 a replica of the original by Opie is patent. Opie died April 9, 1807. Burr arrived in England in 
 the early summer of 1808, over a year after the artist had died. 
 
 { 84 } 
 
Mr. James Speyer 
 
Vanderlyn's Self Portrait 
 
 And 
 His Artistry 
 
 OHN VANDERLYN'S name is reminiscent of Burr portraiture. The lives of 
 the artist and statesman were interwoven for a considerable span and it is by 
 the brush of Vanderlyn that Burr's features are now best preserved to us. Van- 
 derlyn's youthful art talents were fostered by Burr who discerned in him signs 
 of great promise which time justified. Starting as Burr's protege, and twenty 
 years his junior, he later became his benefactor's steadfast, even if at times his somewhat 
 querulous, friend. Burr occasionally requisitioned his services as a limner for himself, while he 
 placed with him a steady flow of orders for portraits of his mentally, physically and filially 
 perfect daughter Theodosia. Her appeal to the artist during childhood and womanhood must 
 have been great, for he painted her con amore. Perhaps no more artistic and beautiful portrait 
 was ever created than the 1802 profile of this rare creature by Vanderlyn, inspired through his 
 recent studies abroad in the school of the Frenchman, David. It is doubtful whether Burr's 
 intimacy with Vanderlyn would have ever ripened save from their common devotion to tins 
 remarkable woman who was so unjustly abandoned by fortune. During Burr's exile, patron 
 and former protege were thrown much together, and Burr, with his unceasing restlessness, 
 proved himself not a stimulus to Vanderlyn, but rather a thorn in his flesh. The artist resented 
 his activities and Burr retaliated by entries in his diary sometimes not very flattering. To the 
 singularly cheerful and optimistic Burr the artist had a temperamental make-up and was lazy 
 and grouchy. Burr was dictatorial, dethroned and powerless, and Vanderlyn, now a monarch 
 among painters, was disposed to ignore the orders of his erstwhile patron. No rupture ever 
 occurred between them, but years after, through divergent interests, they drifted apart. 
 
 Jan. 30, 1811, Paris. Burr entered in his diary: "To Vanderlyn's, who was just (near 10 
 a.m.) up, and had not breakfasted. He was quite cross that I came so early, though his own 
 appointment." 
 
 Feb. 11, 1811, Paris. "Then to Vanderlyn's by his appointment. He had forgotten the 
 appointment; had engaged to go out; and was not very glad to see me." 
 
 Vanderlyn's points of contact with Colonel Burr were numerous. In company with his 
 brother, the doctor, he came to New York, in 1792, where he entered the employ of Thomas 
 Barrow, a collector of art and a dealer in artist's materials. Here he came in contact with Stu- 
 art and Trumbull and studied art in the school of Archibald Robertson, a Scotch miniaturist, 
 until the Fall of 1794, when he returned to Kingston to practice his newly adopted profession 
 during the winter of 1794-5. As he was only nineteen, he must have been singularly talented if 
 he turned out anything creditable. In the spring of 1795 he started portrait painting and Burr, 
 
 { 85 > 
 
interested in his welfare, through his copies of Stuart's portraits of himself (Burr) and Egbert 
 Benson, paid his way to Philadelphia to study under Gilbert Stuart. Here he resided with that 
 master for ten months, when Stuart told him he could teach him no more. In the summer of 
 1796 he painted a portrait of Theodosia, who had reached the age of thirteen years, and one of 
 Gallatin, and another of Adet, all for Colonel Burr. In the Fall of 1796 he left for Europe, 
 where he studied until 1801, when he returned to the States. In 1796, on his arrival at Paris, 
 he met Bartow Prevost, Burr's stepson "then Secretary for Monroe," who aided him in his 
 introductions. In 1802 he painted portraits of Colonel Burr and his daughter Theodosia. In 
 1803 to 1805, he was in Paris; from 1805 to 1807 in Rome, where he painted his celebrated 
 Marius; in Paris again in 1808, where he exhibited this painting; June 3, 1811, Burr addressed 
 him in Paris; in 1812, he painted his Adriane; in 1815, he returned to the United States and 
 met with the antagonism of Trumbull, the indifference of much of the public, and friction 
 with individuals. All this so disturbed him and absorbed so much of his time, that, with added 
 efforts to get government recognition, he had little or no time to devote to Burr, so that they 
 grew apart as they waxed old. Burr's diary tells of their early intimacy and makes frequent 
 references to Theodosia's portraits by his brush, and perhaps the few sheets of Vanderlyn's 
 Diary, which still exist in the hands of Henry Alloway, Esq., of Goshen, New York, may shed 
 additional light on this interesting friendship and the Burr portraits should they ever become 
 accessible. Vanderlyn died in 1852, at the age of seventy-six outliving Aaron Burr, his first 
 patron, some sixteen years. 
 
 Though this somewhat minute statement of Vanderlyn's movements is uninteresting, it 
 is useful in determining the chronology of the Burr portraits. How many he painted of the 
 father and the daughter may never be known. 
 
 John Vanderlyn, the artist, was a fine specimen of the American race. He never married 
 and it may be, as has been asserted, that the reason therefor was the failure of his suit for 
 Theodosia Burr's affections. He was born in Kingston, N. Y., Oct. 11, 1776, and was only 
 seven years her senior. When, where and under what circumstances his fine self-portrait was 
 produced I have no knowledge, but Burr placed high value upon it and kept it with him until 
 the last years of his life. It then passed to Mrs. Joshua Webb, a lady with whom Burr resided 
 and who took a kindly, tender interest in his welfare. She was an amiable and unfortunate 
 woman who, at one time possessed great personal attractions and a romantic disposition, so 
 romantic indeed that she violated the conventions by marrying two gentlemen, and living 
 with two others ahead of the dissolution of her marriage bonds. Poverty overtook her, yet she 
 found opportunity and means to befriend Col. Burr until his death. Her needs soon amounted 
 to distress and when that became acute, she turned for succor to that good soul, Ann S. 
 Stephens, the authoress, whose interview I give at length further on. It is not unlikely that 
 Col. Burr presented Mrs. Webb with this painting, but there is an even chance that it was 
 left in her custody, and that she realized the moral propriety of its annexation, in her hour of 
 need, as lawful payment for services rendered. Mrs. Stephens rescued Mrs. Webb financially 
 on several occasions, who finally, either in gratitude or repayment of the loans, construe it as 
 you will, gave her benefactress the Vanderlyn portrait. It was during Mrs. Stephen's owner- 
 
 { 86 } 
 
John Vanderlyn 
 
 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 
 
 Self Portrait 
 
ship that I first saw it, Nov. 14, 1882. Subsequently it was loaned to the New York Metro- 
 politan Museum of Art, where it was housed for many years and where it now permanently 
 hangs as a bequest from Miss Ann S. Stephens. 
 
 This self portrait possesses great charm because of its sincerity. It is a fine, masterly ex- 
 ample of very early 19th century American art, painted, I judge, between 1811 and 1816, 
 when the artist would have been thirty-five years old. There is none of that exaggeration in 
 the pose so common to self portraits, but to the contrary, it is so restrained that it could easily 
 represent one of the successful, sturdy merchants of the time. The features too are rather a 
 surprise, for they do not typify a temperamental artist, but rather a stolid, unimaginative, 
 truthful, commonplace man. The free arrangement of his copious brown hair, straggling on his 
 forehead and temples, and perhaps his loosely tied neck kerchief, and his rather loud plaid 
 shirt may reclaim him as an artist, or at least stamp him as something of a dandy. He is shown 
 bust length, two-thirds facing front. He possesses a straight nose, hazel eyes, a clean shaven 
 face, save side whiskers. His well modelled features are painted in large plain masses of color, 
 and the values of the textiles, velvet, linen and cloth, are of the finest quality. The portrait is 
 painted with great care and attention to detail; only one jarring note occurs (at least in the 
 photograph) in the intensity of the left naso-labial line which apparently has been slurred. 
 
 John Vanderlyn, the artist, had a Dutch ancestry. The progenitor of the family in this 
 country was Pieter Vanderlyn who was born in Holland and died at an unknown date, prob- 
 ably at Kingston, N. Y. He married, first, in New York, Aug. 8, 1718, Gerretje Van den Berg 
 by whom he had a daughter Elizabeth. Both mother and daughter soon died, and he married, 
 second, at Kingston, N. Y., June 20, 1722, Geertry, daughter of the Rev. Petrus Vas, by 
 whom he had issue: Nicholas, baptized, at Kingston, 1723; Peter, baptized, at Albany, N. Y., 
 1726; Elizabeth, baptized, at Albany, 1728; Jacobus, baptized, at Albany, 1730; Gerardus, 
 baptized, at Kingston, N. Y., 1734. 
 
 Nicholas Vanderlyn, the son of the forementioned Pieter Vanderlyn, baptized, at Kings- 
 ton, N. Y., 1723, was a dealer in oils and colors, an artist and a Hudson River farmer. He mar- 
 ried twice, first, a Miss Peck "from over the River," by whom he had (1) Dr. Peter Vanderlyn; 
 (2) perhaps a son who moved to New Paltz, and (3) perhaps a daughter. Nicholas Vanderlyn's 
 second wife was Sarah Tappan by whom he had (4) John Vanderlyn, the artist; (5) Gerardus, 
 who died young; and (6) Nicholas, who married Nelly Low, by whom he had John Vanderlyn, 
 Jr., also an artist, and two daughters Sarah and Kate, elderly spinsters, living at Kingston, 
 N. Y., in 1882, when I interviewed them. They did not make a favorable impression upon me. 
 They were most uncertain and contradictory in their statements. The histories of the paint- 
 ings in their possession were meagre, hazy and generally unsatisfactory. To John Vanderlyn, 
 Sr., their uncle, they attributed a supposed portrait of Governor Yates, a supposed portrait of 
 Henry Inman, and a miniature of himself. To John Vanderlyn, Jr., they attributed portraits 
 of Nicholas Vanderlyn and his wife, Sarah Tappan, a portrait of their son Nicholas, and to the 
 two family artists two portraits of Eliza Vanderlyn, daughter of this Nicholas Vanderlyn, the 
 second, both painted and finished one Sunday morning, by John Vanderlyn, Sr., and John 
 
 i 87 } 
 
Vanderlyn, Jr., in competition with one another. Many of their statements were palpable 
 errors. 
 
 Further information concerning the Vanderlyns may be found in the Quarterly Bulletin, 
 of the New York Historical Society, for October, 1921, in a scholarly article on Pieter Vanderlyn, 
 Portrait Painter, by Charles X. Harris. 
 
 Though it is a digression from my original plan I feel, because of the interwoven lives of 
 Burr and Vanderlyn, that there is warrant in reproducing some of Vanderlyn's works to illus- 
 trate his artistic progress. His boyish efforts culminated about 1796, and are well shown in the 
 very early portraits of Theodosia Burr. His development thence on was rapid. In the fall of 
 1796, while still markedly influenced by Gilbert Stuart, and upon the eve of his departure for 
 Europe, he painted portraits of several of his immediate family. That of his mother is one of 
 great excellence, representing her as a comely, dignified old lady, seated. Though it is lightly 
 brushed in it is painted with confidence and vigor. Not quite so happily executed is the por- 
 trait of his venerable father, and still less felicitously painted is the portrait of his brother 
 Nicholas. After a five years stay in Europe John Vanderlyn returned, in 1801, to America, a 
 ripened and skilled artist. His sitters henceforward were artistically posed and correctly 
 drawn ; his flesh colors were pure and true ; his paint was thinly applied and there was practi- 
 cally no impasto. This type of brushwork had been and was to continue prevalent for some 
 years; it was the approved fashion of the time among the leading artists. Vanderlyn had now 
 reached his zenith. During the few months immediately following his return, in 1801, he spent 
 his time in his home town, Kingston, and it was then that he probably painted the two Bruyn 
 boys. 
 
 In the Old Dutch Churchyard, Kingston, New York, are tombstones carrying the follow- 
 ing inscriptions : 
 
 Severyn Bruyn born March 25 th 1785, died Oct. 27, 1856 aged 71 y'rs, and Edmund 
 Bruyn, Esq. born 4^ April 1783, died 5 th March 1847. 
 
 These two portraits are most happily conceived and executed. The younger boy, cata- 
 logued as Edmund, in the Senate House Collection, Kingston, (which I believe should be called 
 Severyn), is shown seated holding an open book with his figure rotated three quarters to the 
 left. His hair is cut squarely across the forehead, and flows to his shoulders on the sides. He is 
 dressed in a coat with a heavy lapel and a spotted vest, and wears a distinguishing large white 
 rolling collar. It is a charming portrait of a quiet, lovable, pensive boy of about ten years, 
 thinly painted, showing the twill of the canvas. 
 
 The elder boy called Severyn Bruyn, (which I opine is Edmund), is a companion piece to 
 the former and pictures a youth about twelve years of age seated with crossed arms, leaning 
 upon a table, with an outstretched paper before him, dressed in the style of the first French 
 Republic. He is a manly young fellow with a face reflecting a mature, progressive and argu- 
 mentative mind. His dress is similar to his brother's, save that he wears a jabot. Still the paint- 
 ing is thin and the canvas shows through. Shortly after, in 1802, followed the fine profile por- 
 trait of Colonel Burr and the extremely beautiful portrait of Theodosia Burr. In 1809 he com- 
 menced to fluctuate in his technique as would appear from a portrait of Colonel Burr, owned 
 
 { 88 > 
 
by the New York Historical Society, if my deductions are correct concerning this painting. In 
 1811, as judged by his portrait of Theodosia Burr Alston, and the portrait of Governor Tomp- 
 kins, he had compromised and the twill of his canvas was largely hidden by his paint. We may 
 now pass to his last period. It was probably slowly reached and continued until his death in 
 1852. This period of his work occasionally, I may even say frequently, lacks artistic and pic- 
 torial quality. His portraits henceforth while good likenesses of generally local celebrities are 
 painted with a heavily loaded brush and the paint lies flat and smooth, with seldom any im- 
 pasto except in the garments. Vanderlyn had dropped from his eminent position to near the 
 level of the majority. His conflicts, isolation and increasing years had dwarfed his ambitions 
 and soured his disposition. He no longer painted for pleasure but for a meagre livelihood. His 
 wing feathers had been clipped and, no longer able to soar, he gave his patrons what they 
 wanted, what they could understand and what they could pay for. In this category come the 
 portraits of William Cockburn, Judge Sickles and Judge Forsyth, all sterling citizens and men 
 of public affairs, and the very beautiful circular portrait of an unknown lady owned by Ed- 
 ward Coykendall, Esquire, of Kingston, N. Y. 
 
 While Vanderlyn was primarily a portraitist he did well with mythological and historical 
 subjects, so well indeed that it is regretable that he did not pursue this side of his calling fur- 
 ther. The beauty of his Ariadne of Naxos, painted in 1812, may have been equalled but surely 
 not surpassed. The original painting now hangs in the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, 
 while a variant, on a smaller scale, belongs to Edward Coykendall, Esquire. The artist's neph- 
 ew, John Vanderlyn, Jr., is sponsor for the statement that it was painted from life and that it 
 was used by the artist to create the larger painting. By a comparison of photographs of the 
 two paintings the honors fall to the work at Kingston. Here the subject is painted with the 
 drapery arranged to hide the naked breasts and with variations in the background. Vander- 
 lyn's Marius Mourning Over The Ruins of Carthage is also a noteworthy work. It represents 
 the dignified warrior, in a fine architectural setting, dejected and sorrowful. I bought from the 
 Misses Vanderlyn, the artist's nieces, in 1882, an unfinished replica of this painting laid in 
 with sepia, with the history that he started it for the City of Kingston but as payments were 
 not forthcoming, he declined to proceed with the work. On the creation of the Old Senate 
 House Association, I presented this unfinished work to them, and it now possesses consider- 
 able interest, as the original painting was destroyed in the earthquake which wrecked San 
 Francisco. 
 
 Vanderlyn made still further excursions into the domain of Art — lie essayed painting re- 
 ligious subjects, but with little success judged by the unfinished female saint in the Museum 
 in the Old Senate House. Her features are coarse though the pose and the drapery are good. 
 Evidently Vanderlyn's forte was not spirituality. Another departure was in the creation of 
 landscapes. His representation of Niagara, done in the winter of 1802-1803, provoked Colonel 
 Burr to write Theodosia: — "You hear the roaring of the cataract when you look at them." 
 Burr alludes to four of these paintings, which, like those of Versailles, now stored in Kingston, 
 and the property of the Old Senate House Association, may have formed a portion of the 
 panorama which he exhibited in New York City. Landscapes to Vanderlyn were, in the main, 
 mere accessories to other paintings. 
 
 { 89 } 
 
Still another digression exists in Vanderlyn's work — he is known to have painted with 
 water colors. One such, in Mr. Coykendall's possession, is, so far as I am able to ascertain, 
 unique as the only instance known. It represents an attractive woman, seated before a marble 
 pillar in a wooded landscape, dressed in Empire costume. Standing and pressing against her 
 lap is a seven or eight year old boy whose resemblance at once identifies him as her son. Their 
 features are those of Swedes or Germans. The painting possesses merit. The ensemble is ex- 
 cellent, the portraiture beautiful, the garments fine except the mother's mantel which is exe- 
 crable. The work is Vanderlyn's beyond dubiety, for it is signed and dated: J. Vanderlyn — 
 Augt. 1800. Drawings from his pen and brush are not infrequent. Lastly, though the knowl- 
 edge of it is now largely forgotten, Vanderlyn copied the Gilbert Stuart portraits of Washing- 
 ton and his wife, now owned by Edward Coykendall, Esquire, of Kingston, New York. They 
 can hardly be called Vaughns, yet they possess some merit. 
 
 { 90 } 
 
Senate House, Kingston, N. Y. 
 
Sarah Tappan Vanderlyn 
 
 Senate House, Kingston, N. Y. 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
Nicholas Vajnderlyn, Jr. 
 
 Senate House, Kingston, N. Y. 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
Severyn Bruyn John Vanderlym 
 
 Senate House, Kingston, N. Y. 
 
Edmund Bbuyn 
 
 Senate House, Kingston, N. Y. 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
Governor Daniel D. Tompkins 
 
 Senate House, Kingston, N. Y. 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
William Cockburn 
 
 Senate House. Kingston. N. Y. 
 
 John Yanderlyn 
 
Judge Nicholas Sickles 
 
 Senate House, Kingston, N. Y, 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
Judge James Chrystie Forsyth 
 
 Senate House. Kingston, N. Y. 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
Unknown Female Portrait John Yanderlyn 
 
 Mr. Edward Coykendall 
 Kingston, N. Y. 
 
M arils Mourning Over The Ruins Of Carthage 
 
 Senate House, Kingston, N. Y. 
 
 John Vanderlyn 
 
W ater Color Sketch John Yanderlyn 
 
 Mr. Edward CoykendalL Kingston, N. Y. 
 
Personal Interviews 
 
 Y COLONEL WILLIAM DUSENBURY CRAFT I was informed of Mr. 
 Nelson Chase. 
 
 By Mr. Chase, at the Jumel House, I was informed of the existence of 
 Colonel Burr's natural son, Aaron Columbus Burr, and of Mr. Henry Burr, the 
 the retired merchant, and enthusiastic genealogist of his family. 
 By Mr. Henry Burr I was informed of Mrs. Ann S. Stephens, the authoress, who told me 
 the story of Mrs. Webb. 
 
 By Mr. R. C. Edwards I learned of Mrs. Tompkins, nominated in Colonel Burr's will as 
 the guardian of his daughter Frances. 
 
 She, in turn, told me the history of this daughter Frances and of Colonel Craft, Colonel 
 Burr's last law partner, and through them my acquaintance was extended to other Burrites. 
 The conversations held with these individuals form the basis of many of the histories of indi- 
 viduals and events hereinbefore set forth, and here may prove twice told tales. 
 
 i 9i } 
 
Mrs. Tompkins' Interview 
 
 HEN my attention was drawn to the Nag's Head portrait of Theodosia I wrote 
 to Dr. Pool, July 9, 1878, concerning it. At his suggestion I addressed a letter 
 to Mr. Amory Edwards Feb. 10, 1882. Feb. 25, 1882, it was answered by Mr. 
 R. C. Edwards who stated: that his brother Amory Edwards had died sud- 
 denly on Oct. 22, preceding; that he had been a resident of Elizabeth, N. J.; 
 that he left an only child, a grown daughter, and that there were no references to be found 
 concerning the Pool portrait among his papers and that "It is barely possible that a Mrs. 
 Tompkins who had the care of Col. Burr's daughter, Frances, may be able to give you some 
 light on the subject of your inquiry. I am not positive that Mrs. Tompkins is living. You can 
 learn of her son Minthorne Tompkins, Captain of Hook and Ladder Co., 5th St., near Avenue 
 D., in this city." 
 
 Mrs. Tompkins was alive, and in the spring of 1882, I called upon her at Tarrytown. She 
 gave me the following information: It was she to whom Burr consigned his daughter Frances; 
 that Oscar Taylor, the witness to Burr's will died soon after Burr from tuberculosis; that the 
 daughter Elizabeth mentioned by Burr in his will died young; that Frances A. Burr, his other 
 daughter, was the child of a lady of 35 or 40 years of age at the time her child was born; that 
 she was probably an Albanian; that she was ill at Mrs. Tompkins' house and was visited by 
 Quakers; that her name is unknown; that she was last seen when the child was 2 years old; 
 that Frances was educated at Miss Haines' fashionable school in Gramercy Park, New York 
 City; that she was good looking, possessed a sweet disposition and was accomplished; that 
 she married Levi P. Leach, and that she had died about three years before this interview; 
 that her husband still survived and resided at Pearl River, Rockland Co., N. Y., where he 
 teaches school; that they had two children living — Aaron Burr Leach, aged about 26 years, 
 and Stanley Prevost Leach, aged about 24 years; that it was Burr's daughter Frances who 
 erected the monument over Burr's grave; that she possesses a lithograph copy of the Vandyck 
 painting; that in the possession of Levi P. Leach there is an unfinished portrait of Burr for 
 which he paid in the vicinity of $100., which he considers a Vanderlyn, and which is identical 
 with the Vanderlyn portrait of 1802, as it is known to her by its engraving. Finally it was Mrs. 
 Tompkins who referred me to Col. Craft from whom I subsequently obtained so much valu- 
 able information. 
 
 i 92 } 
 
Mr. Murphy's Interview 
 
 R. MURPHY, the father of the late Mr. Charles F. Murphy, leader of Tam- 
 many Hall, New York City, was a man along in years, residing in Madison 
 Street, when, December 5, 1881, I was sent, an assistant, to my subsequent 
 distinguished medical partner, Dr. E. B. Belden, to see him professionally. 
 
 He was a most estimable and upright man, refined, well read and pos- 
 sessed manners of much charm. He had then, in his custody, a large and valuable collection of 
 ancient paintings consigned to him from Peru, during or before the late Civil War, containing, 
 it was claimed, works by Velasquez and Murillo. This collection was held by him in a fiduci- 
 ary capacity and I believe he likewise had a personal interest in it. No offer could induce him 
 to part with a single piece of his trust. What became of them ultimately, I never heard. The 
 conversation turning on the vicissitudes of art, he remarked: "perhaps, Doctor, you may yet 
 come across the long lost portrait of Theodosia Burr." 
 
 Inasmuch as I had only a month before acquired the 1802 portrait, by Vanderlyn, of her 
 father Colonel Burr, I followed his chance remark with many interrogations, and his replies 
 gave me my first knowledge of the Bowrowsons. 
 
 In substance he stated: "When I was a small child, clinging to my mother's dress, I heard 
 her frequently gossip with her neighbors concerning the Bowrowsons. They were all residents 
 of the same locality. When Colonel Burr resided at Richmond Hill, he employed Anthony 
 Bowrowson as a coachman, and Anthony's wife as a cook in his establishment. When it be- 
 came necessary for Burr to make a hurried departure from this country, he borrowed money 
 from these Bowrowsons, and they, in turn, annexed all his available belongings, including a 
 portrait of Theodosia, with all of which they removed from Richmond Hill to Sullivan Street. 
 Upon Colonel Burr's return, he asked, begged and implored the Bowrowsons for his portrait 
 of Theodosia, without avail. Anthony Bowrowson shortly afterward became insane, and it 
 was believed, by his neighbors, that it was a visitation of God for his cruelty to Colonel Burr. 
 The Bowrowsons claimed in their defense that Colonel Burr never liquidated his obligations, 
 and that their possession of his property was held by a legal judgment. 
 
 { 93 > 
 
Mr. Henry A. Burr's Interview 
 
 OVEMBER 9th, 1882, I called upon Mr. Henry A. Burr, 44 East 34th Street, 
 New York City, one of the most distinguished members of the Burr family. 
 Among the many things he told me was a remarkable comment of Burr's, 
 prophetic in character and unfortunately now realized. Burr, when travelling 
 in New England, stopped at New Lebanon, Connecticut, to visit a cousin, the 
 father of Henry A. Burr. The postboy riding by the house, threw the Albany Argus, the news- 
 paper of that day, into the yard. Burr, who had not seen a paper for some time, read it care- 
 fully for a half or three quarters of an hour, when he abruptly threw it down and exclaimed 
 bitterly "All that I have fought for has gone for nought; the Legislature has determined upon 
 the speedy naturalization of all aliens, and they, once having tasted the sweets of liberty, will 
 flock to this country to be soon followed by hordes of the lower element, among whom I have 
 travelled in Europe, and in time they will outnumber you two to one, will rule you, will de- 
 mand an equal division of your property with you. Next behold you will have an elective 
 judiciary." This was in 1822, and in 1844 the right of appointment of the judiciary was re- 
 moved from the Legislature and given to the people. Burr's remarks showed great vision and 
 political sagacity. 
 
 Burr obtained a lease for a number of years of a large tract of land, which he immediately 
 released to Astor, or a similarly large real estate operator, he, Burr, to have all the rents for 
 the last three years, and no other remuneration; the lessor to pay the taxes, etc. At the expira- 
 tion of the lease, Burr's daughter, Mrs. Leach, came forward and claimed the rest; her action 
 was resisted, but the lessor was compelled by law to pay, by which she realized a considerable 
 sum of money. 
 
 { 94 > 
 
Colonel William Dusenbury Craft's Interview 
 
 N JUNE 12, 1882, I called upon Colonel William Dusenbury Craft, who was 
 then about eighty years of age. He was one of the most courtly, urbane men 
 that I have ever met, aside from being extraordinarily personally attractive. 
 He had been a student in the law office of Aaron Burr and finally became his 
 partner. He knew the Bowrowsons thoroughly well. Anthony, of that name, 
 was German born and a first class cook, and as such officiated for Aaron Burr; his wife as- 
 sisted about the house. When Burr fled to Europe, the Bowrowsons were left in charge of all 
 his effects, paintings, books, maps, etc. They advanced money to Burr for which Burr con- 
 veyed to them certain lots of ground in the city, but as their claims were never completely 
 satisfied, they kept Burr's effects. Upon the vacation of the Richmond Hill house, the Bow- 
 rowsons moved to Sullivan Street, between Broome and Spring Streets, where they kept a 
 smoke house. 
 
 Colonel Burr had a perfect gallery of portraits of distinguished men, among them Talley- 
 rand ; many of which passed to Bowrowson's daughter, Mrs. Shelburg, and were taken by her 
 to New Jersey. She married a second time. 
 
 Aaron Burr's daughter, Frances, married Mr. Leech, a very fine, gentlemanly, cultivated 
 person; Mrs. Leech was a most charming individual. 
 
 Theodosia Burr was wonderfully studious; study with her was a perfect excitement; it 
 was first one professor, then another all day, hardly finding time enough to eat. She needed no 
 parental urging, it was love with her. 
 
 Aaron Burr was the most accomplished man I ever met. In all my acquaintance with him 
 he never used an improper word, expression nor idea. There was about him always a gentle- 
 manly reserve. There were no sins laid at his door that Alexander Hamilton had not been 
 guilty of; some worse, because Hamilton embezzled the public money, and when detected, 
 openly published an account of it in a pamphlet, in which he stated: "Yes, I have embezzled 
 
 and spent the money on Mrs ," a noted courtesan of that day. His friends thought 
 
 him idiotic; bought up all the pamphlets at any price, and settled his indebtedness. Lying 
 articles have appeared in print concerning Colonel Burr, by men whose description of him is 
 the best evidence they had never known him personally. Once, only recently, appeared such 
 an article, written by an octogenarian, who, when Burr lived, begged for the pleasure of his 
 acquaintance, and was so lowered and abashed by the noble presence of Burr, that he lost his 
 senses and dignity and bowed himself out like a cur, st umb ling over chairs, etc. He has at- 
 tained wealth, still lives and is surrounded by children and grandchildren, and it was only to 
 spare them that the article which calumniated Burr, speaking of him as mean and insignifi- 
 cant, was allowed to go unheeded. So much injustice was done to the memory of Burr that it 
 was the intention of Judge Edwards and Colonel Craft, to write his life, but the work was 
 regrettably never commenced. Burr rarely, if ever, lost a case, and the reason of his success 
 
 i 95 > 
 
was his assiduity; he worked twenty hours and slept four, and Colonel Craft did likewise. 
 
 Three days after the preceding interview with Colonel Craft, June 15, 1882, I had occa- 
 sion to see him again, when he supplied me with the following additional information. 
 
 Aaron Columbus Burr was born in France; came to this country early in life, and sought 
 out Aaron Burr who befriended him despite Mrs. Tompkins' statement to the contrary that 
 he was neither related to nor aided by Burr. Aaron Columbus Burr had a portrait of Aaron 
 Burr, taken late in life, which Nelson Chase tried to obtain. Colonel Craft likewise had one, 
 but in the midst of moving and business cares, it was lost many years ago. Chase, he said, had 
 one at the Jumel House, as also many other effects of Colonel Burr, and ironically commenting, 
 said "anything to give tone to his family." Colonel Craft's comments on Madam Jumel were 
 not flattering. She was an American; her family resided in New York City; she became a pub- 
 he character, and lived probably in Chatham Street. Further continuing he said "her pro- 
 fession was not so public a matter in her day as now." Among her visitors were Aaron Burr, 
 Alexander Hamilton, Monsieur Jumel and other young men of the day. Jumel was impulsive. 
 When a poor cartman's horse dropped dead, to the great distress of its owner, probably his 
 sole possession, Jumel joined the rapidly collecting crowd, looked on for a while, turned and 
 addressed them, saying, "Gentlemen, you pity this man and so do I." Taking fifty dollars or 
 thereabouts from his pocket, he exclaimed, holding up his money, "I pity him so much, gentle- 
 men, how much do you pity him?" In less than five minutes he had collected enough to pur- 
 chase a new beast. 
 
 The future Madam Jumel knew her man. Among her intimate acquaintances she num- 
 bered a priest and a physician. She was taken ill and Jumel was sent for. The physician assured 
 him that she could not possibly recover, and the priest gave her extreme unction, while she 
 implored Jumel to marry her, that her past might be blotted out by dying in the married state. 
 Jumel consented in the goodness of his heart, and promptly thereafter a favorable turn took 
 place in her malady, which speedily terminated in convalescence. She was a loud, coarse, vul- 
 gar woman. This story was given to Colonel Craft by John Pelletreau, who resided with Aaron 
 Burr and who knew everything earthly concerning old New York families. Colonel Craft had 
 never mentioned this story to anyone living, except his brother and myself. Pelletreau was 
 mentioned in the Eden will as "to be a guide in business matters to the young ladies," etc. 
 After Burr's success, in the great Eden case, Madam Jumel would frequently call at his resi- 
 dence in Jay Street, where, like all lawyers of the time, he had his office. She besieged him and 
 he married her. She tried to rule and he demurred, and finally, when things became unpleas- 
 ant, they parted. She frequently, thereafter, called upon him and besought his return, but he 
 was adamant; she became angered, and sued for a divorce. As the suit was about to begin, a 
 lawyer friend of Burr's asked him whether he should defend him. He replied: "No, no, for 
 God's sake no." He was glad to rid himself of her at any price, and there is no doubt but the 
 evidence that she produced for her separation was false. Burr was, in all probability, incom- 
 petent at that date and not likely to be guilty of the immorality she charged. 
 
 Madam Jumel was in the habit of riding in a large, yellow bodied chariot, with footmen 
 and outriders. Chase, now living, in 1882, at the Jumel homestead, was a poor country lad 
 who came to New York and got her protection. She afterward treated him like a cur, but he 
 
 i 96 } 
 
managed to hang on, especially as he had married a daughter of Madam Jumel's sister. 
 Madam Jumel claimed Chase's wife as her own daughter, but it was absolutely false; she grew 
 up and she was known by her own family name until she married Chase. Madam Jumel willed 
 her property to the children of Chase, a son and a daughter. Her estate has been in much liti- 
 gation, and Charles O'Connor, the eminent lawyer, who was retained as counsel, made it the 
 pride and object of his life to sustain the Chase-Jumel interests. The Bowrowsons knew Ma- 
 dam Jumel very well. 
 
 Aug. 26, 1882. 1 again saw Col. Craft.* As usual he proved to be a mine of information and 
 a remarkable connecting link between the past and present. He revered Burr's memory, de- 
 fended his reputation and bitterly assailed his enemies. As I have said before no finer example 
 of the so-called old school, formal and polished gentleman ever existed. I drew his attention to 
 the article published in the New Jersey Historical Society's Proceedings upon the history of 
 the portrait of Burr by Gilbert Stuart, and while he had never heard of the name Keaser, he 
 agreed with me that it was substituted to conceal the name of Bowrowson. Col. Craft knew 
 the Bowrowsons well ; they finally moved from New York to New Jersey ; he called there with 
 one of the sons of old Anthony, and to reach their home they drove from Jersey City to New- 
 ark and beyond to a farm house, or at least a house with but one neighbor in sight. At one 
 time they occupied, in New York City, a double frame house which had a roof with a double 
 slant. This sat back of their stable and store in the midst of a considerable sized lot which ex- 
 tended to a small street in the rear. When Christian, the oldest son, took the business, the old 
 folks moved to the brick house on the corner of Spring and Sullivan Streets, and he moved into 
 the frame house. The New Jersey property was purchased out of their funds by Mr. Shelburg, 
 who married their daughter Theodosia. Shelburg was a strictly honest man and following the 
 decease of the old folks, when discontent arose, was able to account satisfactorily for all funds 
 that had been in his possession. The children of Anthony Bowrowson were not over intelligent; 
 the old woman, his wife, was thrifty but meant for a servant. In the large frame house above 
 alluded to there was a room of immense size which was filled with the portraits and other ar- 
 ticles taken from Burr's house. The portraits were certainly not less than twenty. To Colonel 
 Craft they promised the portrait of Talleyrand, but when asked for it, they never knew "ex- 
 actly who had it;" — they had probably commenced to dispose of the goods and this may have 
 already gone. Colonel Craft became Burr's partner in 1822, and they then were working on 
 the Eden estates and were likewise driven with other work. The claim of the Bowrowson fam- 
 ily to Burr's effects must have been legally good. They lived in the city for many years after 
 Burr's return and he never attempted to regain possession of these effects. When Colonel Craft 
 was associated with Burr, he was asked by him to procure from his former effects in the pos- 
 session of the Bowrowson family, a few globes (of the world) which he had formerly in his 
 library. These he desired to present to his clients, the Misses Eden, then living in a neighbor- 
 ing city — Troy— Burr being then in Albany. Colonel Craft being on intimate terms with the 
 Bowrowsons, asked for the globes which were willingly promised him. The old man Bowrow- 
 son, then insane (from long use of drink) wanted to help things along, so when he discovered 
 
 *Colonel Craft was born Dec. 22, 1802, and died Nov. 19, 1887, and was buried in Fishkill Cemetery, N. Y. He was the last 
 of the three husbands of Magdalen Robertson, who was the youngest daughter of Archibald Robertson, the New York miniaturist, 
 and none of them was happy. 
 
 < 97 } 
 
them in the garret brought them to the head of the stairs and rolled them down. They were 
 shattered into fragments and Dusy — (the Colonel's nickname among them) failed in his 
 efforts. 
 
 Madam Jumel persistently visited Burr and drew him into marriage. She was a devil in- 
 carnate; overbearing and domineering beyond human endurance. Burr sold certain lots of 
 property for which he obtained $15,000., which he invested and probably lost. This angered 
 her and he retaliated in his cool way by saying "Madam I think I am able to take care of your 
 property." They separated and she frequently besought him to return and it was several years 
 thereafter that the suit for divorce was instituted — probably at the instigation of Chase who 
 disliked Burr to have any control of the Jumel estate in any way. The witnesses to the divorce 
 case on behalf of Madam Jumel were two servants, mother and son, both half witted, who had 
 served with Burr. Eminent lawyer friends offered to defend him, but he refused; Burr was 
 probably at that time sexually incompetent. Chase informed Colonel Craft that the decree was 
 taken. The octogenarian referred to, who rendered the opponents of Burr service by villifying 
 him, was General Webb — he who sold himself for political purposes for $52,000.; he who 
 changed himself in politics in twenty-four hours, when the United States, through its agent 
 Nicholas Biddle, President of the . . . Bank, desired the services of a newspaper; a man whose 
 obsequiousness belittled him in the eyes of Burr. Webb's article in the Evening Post was fol- 
 lowed by more reminiscenses by an aged man — none other than the well-known Thurlow 
 Weed; he, who "sought Col. Burr's advice" in all matters of statecraft, likewise, as there were 
 few to defend him, turned his pen against the illustrious man. Burr was generous and im- 
 provident; would spend his money so lavishly as to need oftentimes to raise money on his 
 prospective fees in successful cases. This want of money and probably the little regard he had 
 for the portraits of men who had been his friends in prosperity, but knew him not in adversity, 
 were probably reasons why he did not redeem the effects in the hands of the Bowrowson 
 family. 
 
 i 98 } 
 
Mrs. Ann S. Stephens' Interview 
 
 OVEMBER 14th, 1882, I called upon Mrs. Ann S. Stephens, the authoress, a 
 sweet, cultivated old lady. I was moved to make this call, as Mr. Henry A. 
 Burr informed me that she was the owner of several of Burr's paintings. These 
 proved to be a portrait of Vanderlyn by himself and a portrait of Mary Wool- 
 stonecraft by Opie, both fine works, restored by an Englishman, in New York, 
 by the name of West. 
 
 When Burr was much broken in health, a good soul by the name of Mrs. Joshua Webb, 
 gave him, so the story runs, the basement room in her house, to avoid the stairs, and minis- 
 tered to his wants in a most generous fashion. These two paintings, now owned by Mrs. 
 Stephens, were derived from this Mrs. Webb, who also possessed one of Theodosia, and one, 
 probably of Red Jacket, the Indian, all of which were received directly from Colonel Burr. 
 
 Mrs. Webb was born Isabel Graham, or Palmer; her mother was a cousin to Sir James 
 Graham. She was born at Netherby Hall, in Scotland, the seat of the Grahams. Her partly 
 divulged history is interesting, sad and romantic ; there was much about it she would conceal. 
 Her first marriage occurred in England to Mr. Legg, by whom she had one son, and concern- 
 ing this early married life we know nothing. She came to this country with Captain Stewart, 
 an English gentleman, who was well received in society. While visiting with Captain Stewart, 
 at the home of John Randolph, at Roanoke, Virginia, they had their sole child born to them, 
 a daughter, who in due time became the wife of a minister in the United States, and who was 
 the heir of Simon Lovat, Lord Fraser, the last man executed in the Tower. 
 
 She married, third, Mr. Newton, by whom she had two boys, one of whom, only, grew to 
 manhood, and was known by the name of Malcolm Webb. It was while she was Mrs. Newton, 
 keeping a boarding house, that she befriended Colonel Burr. 
 
 Her fourth husband was Captain Joshua Webb, a gentleman fifteen or twenty years her 
 junior, and a man of wealth, who came from Santo Domingo to New York City. 
 
 When Captain Stewart's funds ran out, she was abandoned and it was very probable that 
 she was never more than his common law wife, though she passed in society as one legally wed. 
 
 Her third husband, Mr. Newton, was likewise wealthy but became dissolute and lost his 
 estates. He, she sued for divorce, which was promptly obtained with his concurrence, so that 
 she could marry Webb. Stewart, Newton, herself and Webb were all present in the lawyer's 
 office, it is said, when the divorce was agreed upon, and Webb stipulated to take Newton's 
 two children, give them his name and educate them. Mrs. Webb was singularly fine looking, 
 gifted and accomplished. After her last marriage, she moved to Portland, where she entered 
 the best society, and when she subsequently removed to New York, she brought letters to 
 Mrs. Stephens from people of distinction in that city. Webb shortly lost his money, and they 
 were compelled to sell one thing after another, until they became so reduced that they finally 
 
 { 99 } 
 
borrowed money of Mrs. Stephens. Mrs. Stephens' husband guaranteed her credit at his 
 grocers, where she ran up a heavy bill which Mr. Stephens had to liquidate. 
 
 It was always the intention of Mrs. Webb to present the portraits of Vanderlyn and Mary 
 Woolstonecraft to Mrs. Stephens, but her poverty was so great that she borrowed their full 
 value several times over from Mrs. Stephens before she gave her title to them. 
 
 The portrait of Theodosia Burr, said to be the 1802 portrait by Vanderlyn, was seized for 
 Mrs. Webb's board bill by a landlady by the name of Mrs. Crosby, with whom it abided, 
 though Judge Edwards made effort to secure it. Later Mrs. Crosby informed her friends, wish- 
 ing to increase her own importance, that it had been a personal gift to her by Colonel Burr. 
 Mrs. Crosby moved to Astoria, Long Island, but the painting was never located, even though 
 I made prompt effort to find it. 
 
 Mrs. Stephens referred me to a Mrs. Longstreth, a resident of New York City, a lady who 
 moved in a very refined and intellectual circle and who, by deduction, I am disposed to think 
 was one of Mrs. Crosby's daughters, yet I am contradicted by my own evidence. It was my 
 impression that it was she who gave me the address of the gentleman whose letter follows, but 
 it is incredible that a well informed daughter would refer me to an outsider for information 
 concerning her own mother; so by elimination the address was probably given me by Mrs. 
 Stephens, though Mrs. Longstreth knew of the Crosby Theodosia. Col. Brewerton's letter 
 follows: 
 
 Springfield, Mass. 
 
 J. E. Stillwell, M.D., 15 April/83. 
 
 My dear Sir 
 
 Yr favor of the 5 th Inst, followed me to Boston: and was only re d a day or two ago, this 
 will account for any apparent delay in responding to the enquiries therein made: 
 
 I regret greatly that I am unable to aid you: My residence in the Crosby family was a 
 matter of many years ago — and memory recalls but faintly the incidents of my brief sojourn 
 under their roof. Mrs. Crosby was then a very old woman and must I think be dead. The 
 daughters (whose names you quote correctly) I met sometime in 1864 and I understood Mrs. 
 L. to say that her mother was then living at Astoria — but I fancy that they had a hard 
 struggle with poverty — and would be difficult people to trace — Mrs. C. could you have con- 
 ferred with her would have been a rich mine for such information as you seek. She was full of 
 anecdotes of Col. Burr whose last hours she appeared to have been familiar with — she claimed 
 indeed to have been his nurse in his final illness, and told me that she cross examined him 
 without success in regard to his "love affairs." Sinner as he was counted — he seems in this mat- 
 ter to have been a gentleman to the last — 
 
 Again regretting that I am unable to assist your search I am 
 
 Very sincerely yours 
 My address is G. Douglas Brewerton 
 
 Col. G. Douglas Brewerton 
 Box"L." 
 Essex 
 
 Conn. 
 
 { 100 } 
 
Mrs. Stephens' interview further revealed that Mrs. Webb divided with her husband her- 
 farthings, until her own death for he outlived her. When her end was approaching, she asked 
 Mrs. Stephens to look after her boy Malcolm, as well as look over her papers and destroy 
 those that she deemed wise. She died during the absence of Mrs. Stephens from the City, who 
 was subsequently informed that Mrs. Webb was one day seen crying bitterly and destroying 
 by fire, many letters and keepsakes. With them went her life's history and clues to her exact 
 identity. Mrs. Stephens nobly kept her promise and Malcolm proved a sorry rascal. For some 
 years Mrs. Webb lived upon an annuity which she gradually sold until her rights in it were 
 extinct. Her daughter, Mrs. Fraser, after her death sought Mrs. Stephens and informed her 
 that her mother had property in Scotland which she intended to try to obtain, stating that 
 the children by Mr. Newton were illegitimate, that her father, Captain Stewart, was living 
 when they were born. She was willing to sacrifice her mother's memory for the possible gain, 
 but her investigations only proved her own illegitimacy. 
 
 Mrs. Stephens told me a story so remarkably romantic that it might well seem that she was 
 falling into her professional habit of writing fiction. As the story ran, an old Scotchwoman 
 went from house to house, selling small odds and ends to her customers, among whom was 
 Mrs. Stephens. One day, while Mrs. Webb was living in this neighborhood, in her deplorably 
 reduced state, she was visited by the old peddler, who hurriedly left and strangely next called 
 at Mrs. Stephens where, in great excitement, she related that to her dismay she had seen "a 
 lady of Netherby in sad surroundings." When interrogated, she stated: "yes, she had known 
 her, as of course only the likes of a poor woman such as she could know a grand lady, only to 
 step aside to let her pass and to courtesy ; it was a sad day that her eyes should see a lady of 
 Netherby so reduced." This was surely strange corroboration to the early life history of Mrs. 
 Webb, a history to which she rarely alluded. Her father was a great admirer of Colonel Burr, 
 and it was he who ordered, and gave the portrait of Mary Woolstonecraft to Colonel Burr, a 
 portrait which has been engraved, and beneath which is the statement that she was the first 
 to vindicate women's rights. Her husband, Mr. Godwin, the poet, had likewise an engraving 
 made of himself. 
 
 Burr's papers were stored in her garret. One day he asked for them, and went over them 
 tenderly and destroyed many. Of those that remained, Mrs. Webb and Mrs. Judge Edwards 
 saw all, and not a fine was there among them to compromise anyone. If such had existed they 
 had been destroyed. Destruction does not mean incrimination; it was likely fine sentiment. 
 Burr remained a cavalier as long as he lived. When old and paralytic, a woman called upon 
 him, and demanded money for their child, an infant at the breast. Mrs. Webb, who was pres- 
 ent, indignantly turned upon the female, expressed herself strongly, and ordered her out. Burr 
 straightening himself with difficulty, turned to Mrs. Webb and exclaimed : "be silent madam! 
 Any man who receives such a compliment from any woman, should accept it." 
 
 The Colonel was fidelity itself; he never divulged a secret. Once, when destroying papers 
 at Mrs. Webb's house, he came across a lock of hair. She, as she commonly addressed him, 
 said "Papa, (or father), who did that belong to?" "It is soft and beautiful hair," he remarked, 
 with a caressing stroke. "But, Papa, you have not answered my question. Who did it belong 
 to?" "It is as fine as silk," he observed and stroking it gently again, he looked up and said 
 "you would not have me say more, would you?" 
 
 { 101 > 
 
Mrs. Stephens likewise told me a story, which if true, would reflect strongly against the 
 character of Burr. It bore upon his divorce from Madam Jumel and the use of a lady's name 
 as corespondent. It was embellished with many circumstantial details, as told by the lady 
 implicated, and was apparently accepted by Mrs. Stephens as truth. There was not a scintilla 
 of truth in it however. It was a fabrication no doubt to save herself. Burr's divorce papers 
 from Madam Jumel, after lying sealed for many years, have been opened recently and contra- 
 dict every statement; no lady corespondent is mentioned. It was a vulgar report written in 
 long hand, at full length, and has been laid before me by Mr. Samuel H. Wandell. Because of 
 these discrepancies I pass by Mrs. Stephens' tale. 
 
 At the time of my interview with Mrs. Stephens, Mrs. Webb has been dead about twenty 
 five years, and was a claimant until late in her life, for an estate in Northumberland, which 
 was in chancery. 
 
 The two paintings which Mrs. Stephens received from Mrs. Joshua Webb, the Vanderlyn 
 self-portrait and the Mary Woolstonecraft portrait, were given by her to her daughter, Miss 
 Ann S. Stephens, who in turn, by her will, gave the former to the Metropolitan Museum of 
 Art, New York, and the later to James Speyer, Esquire, banker, of 1058 Fifth Avenue, New 
 York City. 
 
 Miscellaneous Notes 
 
 (1) The S. G. Rains Company, of Fifth Avenue, New York City, wrote Pidgin, July 2, 
 1902, that they had for sale, at $400., a portrait of Aaron Burr by Vanderlyn. Letters at vari- 
 ous times to various people failed to shed any light upon its existence and so late as Oct. 6, 
 1923, S. G. Rains, of New York City, wrote: "Replying to your favor of the 4th inst., I regret 
 that I cannot recall the painting mentioned in your letter. I am sorry to be unable to be of 
 service to you." 
 
 (2) Colonel William Dusenbury Craft had a portrait of Colonel Burr but it was lost sight 
 of in his changes of residence. 
 
 (3) In the Brooklyn Art Institute, Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, N. Y., in the Fall of 1923, 
 was exhibited a portrait, by an unknown artist, owned by Mrs. E. Le Grand Beers, of the 
 Hotel Plaza, New York City. It was apparently painted close to 1830 and shows a young lady 
 of approximately 25 years at breast length, facing the spectator squarely, head turned slightly 
 to the left, dressed in a blue plaited waist, cut low at the neck. She has blue eyes, black hair 
 plastered closely to her head, a pointed chin, a droop to the tip of her nose and a three loop 
 gold neck chain. Painted on canvas about 18 by 24 inches. 
 
 In my humble opinion there is a mistake in this attribution. Theodosia's eyes were hazel, 
 her hair auburn, she died in the winter of 1812-13, and her features were dissimilar to those 
 in this picture. 
 
 In a letter to Colonel Joseph H. Colyer, Jr., Nov. 2, 1923, Mrs. Beers contributes the 
 following information concerning this painting: "The portrait of Theodosia Burr, daughter of 
 Aaron Burr, was owned by him and was among the contents of his house on Staten Island 
 when sold many years ago at auction, and bought by the grandfather of the man who sold it 
 
 { 102 > 
 
to the antique dealer who sold it to me. I have a letter from the former owner telling how it 
 came into his family's possession. It is most interesting, and worth while." 
 
 (4) Wives. By Gamaliel Bradford (Houghton, Miflin & Co.). This work has a chapter 
 devoted to the consideration of Theodosia Burr- Alston, illustrated with a portrait purporting 
 to be her likeness. It is my modest opinion that in their claim lies an error. The features are 
 dissimilar to those of Theodosia Burr Alston and the arrangement of the coiffure and the 
 period of the garment suggest a painting made fifty years later. 
 
 (5) Portraits of the Rev. Jonathan Edwards and his wife are owned by the Eh Whitney 
 family of New Haven, Conn. 
 
 (6) Mrs. Ciprano Andrande, residing at the Hotel La Salle, East 60th St., New York 
 City, owns an unpublished portrait of the Rev. Johnathan Edwards, painted perhaps by 
 Smybert. 
 
 (7) Mrs. Van Ness, of the Langham, Central Park West and 73rd St., New York City, 
 owns Burr's snuffbox. 
 
 (8) Some of Aaron Burr's hair was sold at the Frossard Sale, and there was also on loan, 
 likewise some of his hair, at Fraunce's Tavern, New York City, the home of the Sons of the 
 Revolution. 
 
 (9) Colonel Burr's cradle is still extant, either in Newark or the Oranges. Mrs. Zinsser. 
 
 (10) Even Colonel Burr's false teeth have been preserved in a small mahogany box. From 
 the size of his dental bills, paid in January, 1834, he was apparently quite constant in his at- 
 tendance upon Dr. Dodge, the eminent New York dentist. 
 
 Dr. Dodge's widow owned this denture and she dying, in 1881, it passed to her niece, 
 who in turn offered to sell it to me. 
 
 (11) Miss Grace Jennings Perry, of New York City, saw at The Inn, at Plymouth, Mass., a 
 framed engraving of Aaron Burr as a youth. This memo. October, 1925, from Samuel H. 
 Wandell, Esquire, and confirmed by Miss Perry. 
 
 (12) Dec. 14, 1925. Dr. Stuart Close, 248 Hancock St., Brooklyn, N. Y., wrote that he had 
 received from Miss Frances Aymer Mathews, a novelist and playright of New York City, who 
 was his friend and patient for many years, her most treasured heirloom, the dressing case of 
 Aaron Burr. Miss Mathews, who died Sept. 10, 1925, was the great-granddaughter of Mat- 
 thew Livingston Davis, the biographer of Burr. The dressing case, of heavy solid mahogany, 
 is a gem of the cabinet maker's craft and is in a perfect state of preservation. It is eleven inches 
 wide, fifteen inches long, six inches deep, inlaid with brass lines, bound at the corners with 
 brass straps and corner pieces, folding brass handles sunken in the ends, ornamental brass 
 name plate on top of cover, bearing the engraved letters "A. Burr," and an ornamental brass 
 key hole plate. The lid, lined with heavy red morocco, contains the original mirror. The in- 
 terior of the case is elaborately constructed with a tray, jewel box, and many compartments. 
 It contains the original scent bottle (old fashioned pressed or moulded glass with stopper) and 
 three opaque decorated (hand painted) glass cups. 
 
 In addition to the dressing case Miss Mathews bequeathed to Dr. Close the following 
 likenesses: 
 
 { 103 } 
 
(a) Daguerreotype of George Aymar Webb, maternal grandfather of Frances Aymar 
 Mathews. 
 
 (b) Silhouette (black) of George Aymar Webb, endorsed in autograph on back, "My 
 Grandfather, F.A.M." (Frances Aymar Mathews.) 
 
 (c) Miniature of John J. Aymar Webb, of New York, maternal granduncle of F.A.M. , 
 signed on back "D. Ames, Miniature painter, 92 Canal St., N. Y." (autograph). 
 
 (d) Miniature of Sarah Emeline Webb Mathews, mother of Miss F. A. Mathews. 
 
 (e) A pearl-shell card case and memorandum book, bought in Paris in 1850, with memo, 
 on wrapper by Miss Mathews; "Great Aunt Fanny's card case — Cousin Arthur Smith's 
 mother, given to Sara E. Aymar Mathews at Aunt Fanny's death." 
 
 Matthew L. Davis, the biographer above, is reputed to have had three wives as well as 
 (according to Col. William Dusenbury Craft) an illegitimate son by Madam Green, who was 
 known as Matthew D. Green, a politician, who was on the newspaper with Webb, and did not 
 dare write differently than he was permitted. 
 
 Matthew L. Davis was the father of George Davis and a daughter, Miss Davis. George 
 Davis, just alluded to, married and had Georgianna Amelia M. Davis. The Miss Davis, al- 
 luded to as the child of Matthew L. Davis, married George Aymar Webb, and they had a 
 daughter, Sarah Emeline Webb, who married the auctioneer Capt. Daniel A. Mathews, and 
 they were the parents of Frances Aymar Mathews. 
 
 Concerning the Webb family. A Mr. Webb was the father of John J. Aymar Webb and of 
 George Aymar Webb, who married Miss Davis. 
 
 Of Captain Daniel A. Mathews, the art auctioneer, a press notice relates: "He was well 
 known among old New Yorkers as a successful art auctioneer, at one time a wealthy man, but 
 who met with reverses in business, thus compelling his daughter to earn her living. She may 
 have inherited a portion of her talent from her uncle, Cornelius Mathews, who was the author 
 of several successful plays, notable among which was the celebrated drama Witchcraft." 
 
 Georgiana Amelia M. Davis, daughter of George Davis, resided in 118 Street, New York 
 City, with Frances Aymar Mathews, her cousin (niece?), but predeceased her by some 
 months. 
 
 Dr. George E. Weaver, 36 West 44th Street, New York City, a grandson of Matthew L. 
 Davis, and Dr. George Reed, of Nyack, N. Y., are both interested in the personal history of 
 Matthew L. Davis. 
 
 (13) The Mooney copy of the portrait of the Reverend Aaron Burr, which was rescued by 
 Judge Edwards from the Bowrowsons, was engraved prior to 1882, for Van Rensellaers Pres- 
 byterian Magazine, and again engraved for Stearns First Presbyterian Church of Newark. 
 The original was in a dilapidated condition and called for heavy restoration, which was made 
 by the artist Mooney, before he made his copy for Princeton College. See article on The Bow- 
 rowsons. 
 
 (14) Mrs. H. R. Watkins, of 1627 Collingwood Avenue, Apartment C 9, Detroit, Mich., is 
 reputed to possess a miniature of Theodosia Burr. 
 
 (15) Dr. Job Sweet, the bone setter of Narragansett, visited Theodosia Burr, at the re- 
 
 { 104 } 
 
quest of her father, Colonel Burr, to reduce a dislocation, and Sweet gives an interesting 
 account of his arrival in New York City. 
 
 (16) An inventory of the Furnishings of Richmond Hill, taken June, 1797, when leased to 
 Sir John Temple, is reproduced in the Quarterly Bulletin of The New York Historical Society, 
 April, 1927. In the Library there was listed: "1 Elegant travelling case with tea Caddies Bot- 
 tles etc." This I believe was the so called dressing case mentioned previously in Note 12. 
 
 (17) Mrs. James Ross, of Montreal, (deceased several years prior to 1928), owned a por- 
 trait of Theodosia Burr, painted on sycamore wood, cracked and blistered. She was Miss 
 Annie Kerr, the daughter of Sheriff John W. Kerr, of Kingston, New York, who befriended 
 Vanderlyn. Her son Commander "Jack" Ross, of Montreal, Ottawa and London, England, 
 inherited her effects. He gave a cruiser to the British Navy in the War of 1914. Mrs. Ross also 
 owned a small "Ariadne," about 36 inches by 24 inches, a replica of the large one owned by the 
 Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia. This Ariadne picture is now owned by Mr. Edward Coy- 
 kendall, of Kingston, New York, who owns several portraits by Vanderlyn. 
 
 (18) Frederick Prevost, Jr., had two daughters. Ella aged 16, and Libbie aged 14, as they 
 appear in a perhaps or even probably a colored photograph?, about fifty years old and appro- 
 priately framed, about 22 inches square. "Uncle Frederick Prevost, his wife and these two 
 beautiful daughters were said to be the handsomest family in Quincy, years ago. I am going 
 to see a newly discovered very distant kinsman in our own Chicago. He is descended from the 
 Bartow Prevost, brother of my great grandfather. They have a picture, a painting of the half 
 sister, Theodosia Burr and I am very desirous of seeing it and knowing the owners. They have 
 kindly invited me to come at any time — Mr. Wm. Breckinridge is an invalid and cannot come 
 out to see me," etc., etc. Letter of Elizabeth Shurtleff, Marengo, 111., Dec. 20, 1926. 
 
 (19) ' Soon after his marriage, in 1833, Burr presented Chase with a portrait of himself 
 and also with two mahogany drawing room chairs, relics of Richmond Hill, which are still 
 owned by his descendants." William Dunlap's Manuscript Diary, in the New York Historical 
 Society. 
 
 (20) Miscalled portraits of Colonel Burr and his daughter Theodosia are not uncommon, 
 and some old copies are claimed as originals. I have seen as many as a dozen such paintings, 
 one half of which the owners honestly believed were genuine, while the other half the owners, 
 mostly dealers, knew were impostures. 
 
 (21) In 1928 the title to the 1796 Vanderlyn portrait of Theodosia Burr had passed from 
 Miss Laura J. Edwards to her sister, Mrs. Mary Morris Edwards, widow of Charles F. Os- 
 trander, residing with her daughter, Mrs. Adams, at 50 West 53rd Street, New York City. 
 
 (22) The "Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New York in the Communion of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church" leased, in 1797, to Aaron Burr that portion of the Church 
 property called Richmond Hill, bounded on the West by Greenwich Street, on the North by 
 Hamersly St. formerly Village Street, on the East by a dotted line A. B., on the South by 
 Spring Street, formerly Brannon Street. This Lease was subsequently assigned to John Jacob 
 Astor. The Mansion which stood on Charlton Street, formerly Hett Street, about 100 feet 
 East of Varick Street was the residence of Aaron Burr. "Map of the North Division of the Pro- 
 
 { 105 > 
 
leslant Episcopal Church Properly and the adjoining properties of Aaron Burr, Mary Barclay, 
 Anthony Lispenard and others." May, 1882. 
 
 The leased plot was rectangular and fairly estimated was about 1300 feet North and 
 South by 1000 feet East and West, and would cover twelve modern city blocks. Through it 
 was later run, East to West, Village Street later called Hamersly Street, Hazard Street later 
 called King Street, Hett Street later called Charlton Street, Budd Street later called Vandam 
 Street and Brannon Street later called Spring Street. While traversing it North and South 
 were Greenwich, Hudson and Varick Streets, and a close approach on the Eastern boundary 
 to 7th Avenue, then called Willow Street and later called MacDougal Street. On one block (as 
 now estimated) North of the confines of Burr's property and three blocks from Burr's house, 
 was the "Episcopal Cemetery," bounded on the South by Clarkson Street and the commence- 
 ment of Carmine Street, on the North by Burton Street now Leroy Street, and on the West 
 by Hudson Street, It was in this cemetery I believe his wife, Theodosia Bartow (Prevost), was 
 buried. She died in 1794, while Burr was occupying the Richmond Hill mansion, and it would 
 naturally be the place he would select. The mansion at Richmond Hill was built by Abraham 
 Mortier, a British officer, about 1760. It was for a short time the headquarters of Washington, 
 was the home of John Adams when Vice President, and was leased by Burr in 1793, who was 
 followed by Egbert Benson. In due time it became a theatre which was ominously opened by 
 The Road to Ruin. Later it became a music hall and the home of a circus. Its history is fully 
 given in T. Alston Brown's Hihry oj the New York Stage, Professor Odell's History of the 
 New York Theatre and by Prosper M. Wetmore in Stone's History of New York. Wandell. 
 
 (23) Among the Sharpies' Pastels in the Bristol Art Gallery is one of Theodosia Burr 
 Alston. At this writing, after a careful study of the photograph, I cannot bring myself to ac- 
 cept it as correctly labeled, though I am informed that it has been identified by some of the 
 Alstons living in South Carolina or Georgia. Perhaps they have accepted it on the strength of 
 the attribution rather than from exact knowledge. 
 
 (24) A collection of papers relating to John Vanderlyn, the artist, is on loan at The New 
 York Historical Society. They were assembled by the late Randall R. Hoes, Chaplain in the 
 United States Navy, a one-time resident of Kingston, New York, and an accurate and indus- 
 trious genealogist and historian. Among these papers is a manuscript history of the Life of 
 John Vanderlyn by Robert Gosman, Esquire. 
 
 (25) I have availed myself of the vast resources of The New York Historical Society 
 which are always at the disposal of students. This institution holds a foremost rank among 
 educational bodies. 
 
 (26) Judge A. T. Clearwater, Kingston, New York, has been a collector of Vanderlyn 
 relics and I am indebted to him for many courtesies. 
 
 (27) John Vanderlyn painted Theodosia Burr's eye about its natural size. It was then 
 mounted in a gold band for use as a brooch. It still remains in Kingston, New York, in the 
 possession of a lady. 
 
 { 106 >