A Previously-Unpublished Gilbert Stuart Portrait of Emily, Duchess of Leinster

(this post is pressented by Jeanne Grimsby)
Gilbert Stuart was born in Rhode Island in 1755 and moved to Scotland in 1771 at the age of 16 to study with Cosmo Alexander. Following the death of Alexander, Stuart returned to Rhode Island in 1773. He moved to England in 1775. There, he developed a successful career but was plagued by financial difficulties that caused him to flee to Ireland in 1787. He remained in Ireland until 1793, when he again fled mounting debt and returned to the United States. During his time in Ireland, he painted these portraits of the Second Duke of Leinster, and of the Dukes’s mother, the Dowager Duchess of Leinster.

In 1787, the year he arrived in Ireland, Stuart painted this portrait of William Robert Fitzgerald, Second Duke of Leinster, wearing the Order of Saint Patrick:

Formerly the property of the Montclair Art Museum, it was sold in 2010 to benefit the Acquisition Endowment Fund.

Stuart’s Portrait of Emily, Duchess of Leinster 

Five years after painting his portrait of the Second Duke of Leinster, Stuart painted this previously-unpublished portrait of his mother. Emily [Lady Emilia Mary Lennox], the Dowager Duchess of Leinster was a woman whose life was even more eventful than Stuart’s own. Born in 1731, Emily was the second of the famous Lennox sisters, daughters of Charles Lennox, Second Duke of Richmond, and illegitimately descended from King Charles II of England. At fifteen, she married James FitzGerald, Earl of Kildare, and went to live in Ireland. The marriage was a happy one despite Lord Kildare's constant infidelities, and the couple had nineteen children. After the death of Lord Kildare in 1773, the Duchess caused a sensation by marrying her children's tutor, William Ogilvie, with whom she had begun an affair some years earlier. Ogilvie was the natural father of her youngest son from her first marriage. A further three children were born to them after their marriage. Twelve of her 22 children predeceased her. She died on 27 March 1814 in Grosvenor Square, London.

The simple background includes the suggestion of a chair with red damask upholstery. The sitter’s hands are summarily indicated as a pinkish blur in the lower left. The supposed date of c.1792 begs the question of Stuart’s completion of the costume and background, as he left many unfinished portraits behind when he fled from Ireland in 1793. However, the cursory nature of the work in those areas would seem to suggest that Stuart completed this painting himself.

Until 1952, this painting was in the collection at Oakly Park, Celbridge, Co Kildare, once the home of Sarah Lennox, Emily’s sister. It was sold in 1952 by Tormeys Auction Rooms Dublin in an estate dispersal. The painting descended in the family of the purchaser until about 2002. It was bought from a London dealer by the current owner.

***

a portrait of a young Lady EMILY LENNOX

artist unknown

[The Stuart portraits mentioned here are not listed in the Lawrence Park volumes.  However, Edward, Lord Fitzgerald (1763-1798) is. Stuart often painted extended family members. The portrait of young Edward depicts a dashing modern young man.  He is also a son of Emily. Watch for this upcoming post!] 

Is Janet's portrait of Washington by GS? portraits of George Washington (and Meeker) &.... When Stuart was Really Interested in a male face...

See post previous to this, for backgound on Janet's portrait of President George Washington.
After leaving America to make a name for himself in London and Dublin (1775-1793), Stuart returned and for the rest of his life painted in New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC, spending his last days in Boston. He left NY for Philadelphia with the express intent to paint George Washington in person.  Philadelphia, when he arrived in 1794, was the temporary capital of the US from 1790 to 1800.  Besides his by now well established reputation as a fine portrait painter, through familial contacts he was well placed to move among the elite economic and political circles.  A letter of introduction to the President from John Jay (first Chief Justice of the United States, a Founding Father) led to an invitation to visit.
Stuart painted only three portraits with live sittings, painting afterwards at least 100 replications of these works.  Most are based on the Athenaeum portrait, called The Athenaeum.  This unfinished work (which also includes wife Martha in a separate portrait) is one of Stuart's most celebrated portraits, although unfinished.
Stuart painted Washington in 1795 when the Pres. was 63.
Stuart asked permission to keep The Athenaeum to fulfill commissions for replicas (providing a steady income--and not requiring the President to sit for any commissioned portraits, which the President did not like to do.) The President saw the advantage for Stuart in keeping the original and thought it a great idea for the artist to keep it.
In the post just previous to this one, Janet asked about whether her portrait of George Washington might be a Gilbert Stuart.  So now you, the reader, knows that the majority of portraits of GW painted by Stuart were based on The Athenaeum.
Thus, an answer to this question would be to present portraits here, and let you decide. Some easy things to look for: The age of Janet's portrait seems to be within the realm of possibility, as does the background of reddish brown curtain sweeping over the shoulder.  The detail photo depicting the neckcloth appears to distort the chin somewhat, that should be discounted (ie a bad photo).  The costume is correct; but does the neckcloth itself show the bright swerving dashes of alternating dark and light characteristic to GS's treatment of the jabot ( ruffle on the front of the shirt.)?  A common GS detail is a light spray of white on the shoulder of the jacket (for his earlier male portraits when men wore their hair in this style) indicating some of the powder which has floated off the hair.  The proportionality of the facial features in Janet's portrait seems to be correct. All in all her portrait captures the likeness of Washington and is a fine portrait.  But.......IS the portrait by the MASTER?                                                              

                                     Below Samuel Meeker's portrait from the Philadelphia period

"But when he was really interested in a male face, he painted with that compound of insight, sympathy, and scientific detachment which is the ideal of modern biographers."  On Desperate Seas by James Thomas Flexner  ---A BIOGRAPHY of Gilbert Stuart

One might ask, was Stuart interested in the person of Samuel Meeker?  Can you see Meeker's personality? Does the portrait somehow reflect a calm personality, wisdom, kindness?  

How does the master acheive that?!                                         

     the unfinished Athenaeum, kept by the artist until his death to make additional GW portraits

The Gibbs-Channing-Avery Portrait at the MET

Janet's unsigned George Washington portrait.

• Skin hues are not subtle and lack the renowned inner vibrancy, flesh tints and transition areas are rough without use of the creamy, subtle light dark shading, & masterful coloring 
• the hair/jabot without characteristic dashes of brilliant structure, shoulders seem disproportionately thin, the portrait lacks the typical Stuart "photographic likeness", enabling the viewer to study the sitter's personality
• lips/chin lack firm realism, as does the shadowing of the beard (see Meeker)   
• As I wrote Janet, the portrait is decisively NOT a Stuart.   

Here is another example of a portrait that may or may have been done by Stuart.
With comments from the expert

for Stuart's pigments and paint application click here

A NEW BIO OF GEORGE WASHINGTON
"George Washington: The Wonder of the Age" by John Rhodehamel 
"This sympathetic, though not uncritical, account of the first president's journey from minor Tidewater gentry to mythic statesman is crisply written, admirably concise and never superficial.  As a brief acount of Washington's life, it is unlikely to be surpassed for many years." review by F. Bordewich

Is this portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart??

Our master is known for his portraits of George Washington; thanks to this we can have a vivid image of what our most famous American, our Founding Father, looked like.  Of course you all know that Washington had a set of false teeth after suffering from bad dental health for years, so this had the effect of molding the shape of his lips...Note that he is never depicted smiling.  Washington was inaugurated for his first term as President in 1789.
Being President, certainly Washington would be the subject of many portraits of the day.  And our Gibby did not sign his works.  Can it be easily discerned which are true Stuart portraits?  Can we abide by Stuart's "stated" signature, that the portrait in its entirety is his signature?

Janet has sent me photos of a portrait along with a note containing a bit of background:
"My husband and I own a very early oil painting of George Washington.  We have owned it for many many years.  My husband purchased it from an art dealer in Massachusetts I am guessing 20-30 years ago.  He is almost 85 so not exactly sure.  We are not familiar with art other than a few that we have owned for our own enjoyment.  If I send you a picture of it can you give me any information about it? It is not signed.  I recently tried to find out about early oil paintings by Gilbert Stuart.  It would be a miracle if it were by him.  It is wonderful and we do love it! Please let me know if you are willing to take a look at it....I read you told a man to send you a picture to verify IF it could be by Gilbert Stuart...."

MY ANSWER AND MORE ABOUT STUART'S WASHINGTON PORTRAITS IN THE NEXT POST
the unsigned portrait in its frame, detail of the face, and detail of the neckcloth





Here is another George Washington, is it by Gilbert Stuart? for a post on this Click on this link:
If there are other portraits of G.W., please send them (photos) to me bethjena at gmail

Fine copies of Stuart are also floating about; Mrs Luke White and her Son, Lawrence Park thought the copy he was looking at was original

Gilbert was in Dublin for nearly six years (1787-93).  As a reminder he had left America to find his fortune in London (and escape the War of Independence) arriving in 1775 nearly destitute and without friends or patrons.  {It is possible that Stuart had thought he had found a rich patron in Dublin, the Duke of Rutland, but the Duke died about a month after Stuart's arrival.}  It is thought that Luke White was among his first sitters in Dublin.  Elizabeth was his first wife, she bore him seven children.

On Oct 5 the Stuart portrait of Mrs Luke White and her son was auctioned at the Doyle Auction House of New York.  

A portrait Of Mrs. White is listed in Lawrence Park; #903

*************from the Park Volume
MRS. LUKE WHITE d. 1799
AND HER SON

Elizabeth de la Maziere, of Dublin, Ireland.  In 1781 she married Luke White.  According to family tradition, the boy in this double-portrait is her fourth and youngest son, Henry (1798-1873) who was created Baron Annaly in 1863, in which case the picture was painted later than 1790, but it is imossible to establish this with certainty, as a living descendent expresses the opinion that the child might be her second son, Samuel.

Dublin, c.1790. Shown at half-length, Mrs. White is seated, turned half-way to the right, with her hazel eyes directed at the spectator. She has a wealth of hair, powdered gray, and she is dressed in a white dress, with a pale yellow silk shawl over her shoulders and arms.  A black velvet ribbon encircles her neck.  On her lap she holds her small boy, who has long, blond har and whose gray eyes are directed at the spectator.  He presses his head to his mother's cheek, is turned half-way to the left, and puts his left hand on his mother's shoulder.  He is dressed in a white dress with large ruffled collar and a pink sash.  The background shows trees, sketched in brown, to the left and above the figures, and a distant landscape of hills and sky in blue and yellowish-pink at the right.
     This double-portrait has the same history as the companion picture of Luke White by Stuart.  It is now owned by Henry Reinhardt & Son, NY.
The present Lord Annaly owns a copy of this picture, and another copy was sold at the auction of Lord Massy's belongings in 1916 to a furniture dealer.  Who painted these copies is unknown.

************************

This is the portrait of Mrs.White auctioned on Oct 5 

Thus, Lawrence Park indicates that there exists in fact 3 portraits of Mrs. Luke and her son (note that this one does not have the landscape touches mentioned by Park).  Lawrence clearly thought that the one he was looking at was the original.... but the auction house declares that the portrait it auctioned on Oct 5, was a copy, BY STUART, of the original Stuart! (thus an original Stuart)
This is getting confusing~

From Doyle Auction House:
**
Provenance:
By descent in the White family in Ireland
Scott & Fowles, NY, acquired from the above, 1920
Ehrich Galleries, NY, 1930
Mrs. James B. Higgin, NY, acquired from the above
Wildenstein and Newhouse Gallery, NY, by 1932
Leroy Ireland, acquired at auction, c 1940
Ernest Closuit, Fort Worth, TX, acquired from the above, 1944
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, acquired from the above, 1959
Morton Kornreich, Harrison, NY, c 1980

A label on the back of the auctioned portrait describes the work and identifies Wildenstein/Newhouse as part of the provenance, and indicates that the other related portrait is at the Toledo Museum of Art.

A portrait described by Lawrence Park (no.903) as the original from which Stuart painted the present work, presently in the permanent collection of the Toledo Museum of Art, is now believed to be a copy.  It appears that the location of the original double portrait is unknown.

**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, to my eye, the portrait that was auctioned, looks to be a Stuart original.  But, where is the ...original original...? The #903 portrait from Park (see below) shows hands that are perfect; Stuart did not particularly like doing hands....But, if it is not a Stuart, it is a beautiful, magnificent copy, at least the black and white image.  And Park was convinced apparently that it was original.

The person who would know the authenticity of these portraits would be Carrie Barratt, who has the most up-to-date accounting of all Stuart portraits.  But looks to me like Doyle House auctioned a genuine Stuart. A reputable auction house would give the most latest accurate information on a portrait. Lawrence Park shows an unfinished portrait of these two, #904, which must be considered the original, then Stuart used this unfinished portrait to complete the final painting.  Apparently this unfinished portrait has not been located.

***********

#903 Mrs. Like White and her Son in the Lawrence Park Volumes (my photograph)

This portrait is "AFTER" Stuart

but ....Park thought it was original.

The Stuart portrait of Mrs White was sold for $43,750.00.   The estimate was $20,000.- $40,000.

Stuart's Pigments and Paint Application continued (2nd part)

SEGMENTS FROM:
American Painters on Technique: the Colonial Period to 1860, "Gilbert Stuart: the First American Old Master": Mayer, Lance, and Gay Myers; Los Angeles, J Paul Getty Museum, 2011

Stuart also had opinions about Titian and Rubens that may have influenced his own method of applying paint.  In sharp contrast to painters who loved the mellowness and deep tone of Titian's paintings, Stuart believed that "Titian's works were not by any means so well blended when they left the esel...Rubens...must have discovered more tinting, or separate tints, or distinctiness, than others did, and that, as time mellowed and incorporated the tints, he (Rubens) resolved not only to keep his colours still more distinct against the ravages of time, but to follow his own impetuous disposition with spirited touches." [Dickinson "Remarks" 2.]

One odditity in the layout of Stuart's palette, as reported in three different accounts,[Jouette 1816] is that the color blue was placed farthest to the right, next to the thumbhole.  This position of honor (nearest to the hand that holds the paintbrush) was traditionally given to the white pigment and is shown that way in most other palettes of all periods.  It is tempting to think that Stuart had a special reason for placing his blue in this prominent position--he loved to commingle bluish strokes with his flesh to imitate the effect of blue veins under the skin.  But this unusual arrangement is contradicted by five other accounts that have him placing the blue more conventionally on the other (left) side of the palette,[Dunlap 1834] so it is possible that Stuart sometimes arranged his palette this way, and sometimes not.

Stuart's principal blue pigment (and in some accounts the only one) was Antwerp blue.  Unfortunately, this is an imprecise term, and we cannot say exactly what "Antwerp blue" meant in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.  By the middle of the nineteenth century, the term had come to mean a weaker variety of Prussian blue, but modern authorities point out that in earlier times colormen may have also sold completely different copper-based pigments--or even mixtures of pigments--under the name Antwerp blue.[Harley 1982] During Stuart's lifetime, the finest and most permanent blue color was known to be ultramarine, but it was extremely expensive (the much cheaper artificial ultramarine becoming available only after the artist's death in 1828). The expense of ultramarine helps explain some of the slightly confusing explanations of various observers about Stuart's use of blue pigments.  Jouette said Stuart "uses no ultramarine but keeps it by him." [Jouette 1816]  Jocelyn gave the most complete explanation: "though he [Stuart] preferred Antwerp blue to all other ordinary blues, he would doubtless have used Ultramarine...but for the expense, and especially the trouble & uncertainty of procuring it." The final word on this matter should be given to Stuart himself, who would probably have been impatient with the discussion: "I can produce what I wish from these colours, nor can any man say whether or not I put into my faces ultramarine.  Colouring is at best a matter of fancy & taste." [Jouette 1816]

Stuart did not change his palette very much during the time when there are good records of his colors..........TO BE CONTINUED...



     

More on Sophie v La Roche, friend of Goethe, on her trip to London where she meets Gilbert Stuart; she writes that this portrait artist was criticised....why?

Sophie v. La Roche (1730- 1807)

Sophie, daughter of a German doctor, had the typical female education (of the upper class) with emphasis on language, art and literature, music and maintenance of household.  After making her formal debut into society, she was betrothed to Italian Giovanni Ludovico Bianconi, which broke apart over religious differences.  She then was engaged to the famed German poet, writer and philosopher Christoph Martin Wieland but this relationship did not survive geographical distance.  In 1753 she married Georg Michael Frank La Roche, secretary and estate manager of a state minister.  Of 8 children 5 survived to adulthood. In the 1760s Sohpie was a court lady at the duke’s castle of Warhausen—she had access to a large library, and helped with court correspondence (written in French).  Later the family having moved to Coblenz, Sophie carried on a literary salon, mentioned by Goethe.

Perhaps Sophie’s biggest claim to fame is being known as one of the first female authors of a novel (quite unacceptable in those days): Die Geschichte des Frauleins von Sternheim.
Sophie v. La Roche travelled to London accompanied by her son Carl, age 20. 

Portrait of Sophie v La Roche by Georg Oswald May, 1776

From her diary of the trip on SEPT 13, 1786; she and Carl visit the most famed artists of the day

   "An extraordinary day!  Pictures by Reynolds, Gainsborough, West, and Stuart; then to Green, the engraver’s. To my mind, in the homes of these men the English character glistens like the gold they employ for the encouragement and reward of diligence in art; the numerous orders and the artists’ prosperity are evidence of this.  Lovely homes, apartments hung with pictures by famous old masters, bronze and marble ornaments—these are one’s first impressions; then at Reynold’s, through a passage full of half-finished pictures, one enters a room lit from above, and where the quantity and beauty of the pictures heaped up there, as if conjured by a magic wand in their myriad forms and fascinating rhythms, leave one quite dumbfounded.  This is no exaggeration, for they are piled against each other in threes and fours.  Sir Joshua Reynolds was in the country, which disappointed me, as I should have liked to make his personal acquaintance and judge of his manner; for a clever man quite recently maintained ’that the works of painters and sculptors always reveal qualities of their own personality, in the same way as poets and moralists always put their main affections into the title role, with the strongest light thrown on to them.’

   I do not know whether this remark has any foundation, or whether I was prejudiced by the specious tone of the utterance, but I thought I saw some truth in it, as once a painter, who had very strong features, was criticised in all his really good and finished portraits for ‘making a credible likeness and beautiful picture with features too strong.’ " ...

German visitor and friend of Goethe Sophie von La Roche in London 1786, pays a visit to Stuart who now reigns at the top with Joshua Reynolds and West, in grand digs

Stuart left Newport RH in the fall of 1775—already the colonies were under threat of war, the harbor had become so dangerous that Stuart’s ship was held up for a week by a British man-of-war.  The goal was London.  Stuart surely knew that Benjamin West (born in PA) was already there. Out of funds quickly thereafter, he auditioned successfully as a church organist and lived in “cheap lodgings” (according to his daughter.)  The artist continued to be destitute, finally sometime  in the late winter of 1776 Stuart wrote to West to ask for help “to live and learn.”  Stuart’s talent began to unfold and success quickly followed. 

In 1782 Stuart achieved an explosion of prominence, and his reputation skyrocketed, with the display of his portrait The Skater in the Royal Academy’s exhibition of that year, allowing him to leave his apprenticeship with West.  He now felt that in order to better convey his success and prosperity, impressive expensive lodgings were in order (despite the cost).  He rented a grand house, as was usual with other successful portrait painters, which also provided the suitable surroundings for his more prominent sitters and for proper entertainment. It was here, on Sept 13 1786, that Sophie von La Roche [from Germany] visited Stuart. 

The Skater by Gilbert Stuart 1782

Sophie kept a diary of her trip to London, one day was designated to paying tribute to famed English artists. September 13, 1786: She begins her entry “An extraordinary day!” and continues “Pictures by Reynolds, Gainsborough, West and Stuart; then to Green, the engraver’s.  To my mind, in the homes of these men the English character glistens like the gold they employ for the encouragement and reward of diligence in art; the numerous orders and the artists’ prosperity are evidence of this.  Lovely homes, apartments hung with pictures by famous old masters, bronze and marble ornaments—these are one’s first impressions;

... “we found West, the painter of historical scenes, there in person, surrounded by pupils and masterpieces by his own hand.  He received us nobly, though unassumingly, in the manner of all great achievement.  He works in a room lit from above, and the gallery leading to it is hung with sketches of completed pictures of which engravings had been made....

[and here are the few comments made when she visits “Mr. Stuart.”  One could come away with the impression that Sophie did not care for the turn of the conversation towards the price of portraits]

...“From here we arrived at Mr. Stuart’s, a young, but respected artist, who will become an excellent portrait painter; he already has plenty to do, and deserves every encouragement.  He, too, lives as if in the hall of the temple of the Muses, in rooms of magnificent style, fit for true genius to unfold its wings and soar.  Fine architecture surrounds him; and it would be almost impossible for him to introduce anything niggardly or anxious into his pictures.  But in accordance with all this, 20, 50, 100 and 150 guineas are the sums quoted here when the talk turns to the prices of portraits.”

No other words referring to Stuart. Sophie visited the engraver Green, and then lunched with "Mr Heinzelmann" a relative.  A brief description of the rest of the afternoon: "We had an old English menu; a large fish, boiled mutton, pudding, boiled cabbage with butter, and a roast.  Punch was made at table.  After the meal Miss Heinzelmann played the piano and sang until I was fetched to see Somerset House, a magnificent palace built in four large wings dedicated to the academies of science and art."

Stuart did not last long in his grand digs.  1787 he went to Dublin at the invitation of a patron (who unexpectedly died), and decided to stay.  To avoid creditors in London?  In 1789 he was sent to debt prison where he irreverently continued to paint portraits for "bread."

A Stuart is auctioned, but is this William Brownlow the real Stuart?

I noticed a Gilbert Stuart portrait "The Right Honorable William Brownlow" was sold recently at auction at Sotheby's--my first question these days is "IS IT GENUINE?"  Now, I am not a titled expert.  But if one compares this portrait to the excellence of the portrait of Meeker, a question as to authenticity might be raised.  Does this portrait nail the likeness of Brownlow, or does it have an "artistic" look?  Could it in fact be a copy?
The estimate sale price was $15,000 to $25,000. and it sold for $27,500.00
Thus one should be certain that the artwork is genuine, and one would think that Sotheby's would know a copy from the real thing. OR. Might Sotheby's be interested more.... in a sale?  How much research does an auction house carry out on a particular artwork...

The portrait of Brownlow indeed is listed in the Lawrence Park volumes, with his image (however only in black and white.)  A swift comparison shows that the portraits are the same.

PROVENANCE (as provided by Sotheby's)
Sale: Heritage Auctions, Dallas, November 11, 2009, lot 66013
Acquired at the above sale by the present owner

The Right Honorable William Brownlow (1726-1794) 
by Gilbert Stuart c.1790 Dublin

FROM LAWRENCE PARK:
Dublin, c 1790.  Half-length, seated half-way to the right in an armchair upholstered in red.  His gray-blue eyes are directed to the spectator.  He wears a very dark blue velvet coat, a pale yellow figured or embroidered waistcoat, a white neckcloth and ruffled shirt.  His wig is powdered.  His right hand, holding a letter, is resting on a table covered with a soft gray-blue cloth.  The plain background is the color of dark oak.

A son of William Brownlow of County Armagh, Ireland, by his wife, Lady Elizabeth Hamilton, daughter of James, Sixth Earl of Abercorn.  In 1754 he married first, Judith Letitia Meredyth of Newtown, Meath; in 1765 he married, second, Catherine, daughter of Roger Hall of Mount Hall, Downshire, Ireland.  He was a Member of Parliament for County Armagh.  His grandson, Charles Brownlow (1795-1847) was, in 1839, created Baron Lurgan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The image in Park matches that which was auctioned, as far as I can tell.  But, if one compares the style of portrait between Brownlow and Meeker, Meeker appears to be so unbelievably accurate, to be almost a photograph. (My mother's dog Sammy used to look up at the portrait of Meeker and bark in the light of the setting sun!)  Possibly however Stuart DID have a different style in his earlier years in Dublin? But take a look at Aaron Burr, painted ca. 1794.

Aaron Burr by Gilbert Stuart ca. 1794

This is more of a Meeker style, not a Brownlow style.
And where is a more accurate provenance (history of ownership of the painting) of "Brownlow"?  Why is it lacking so substantially?  Where is the info that this portrait was, in the early 1900s, in the possession of Lord Lurgan of Brownlow House in Ireland (provided by Park)?

Reading Park more closely I found the following:


"A replica (or copy?) of this portrait is owned by Viscount de Vesci."

NEW DEVELOPMENTS !

I received an exciting email, from one of the foremost experts on Gilbert Stuart.  Dorinda Evans published an exemplary work on the master portrait artist in 1999 "The Genius of Gilbert Stuart". Over the last years she has been working on an in-depth analysis with new provocative thoughts about Stuart,  and it is now published! Congratulations! 

Her note to me:

   Ashgate has just published my book, Gilbert Stuart and the Impact of Manic Depression.  I thought you'd be interested.

                                                  With best wishes,

                                                  Dorinda Evans

I responded (with also exciting news):
Lovely, thank you!

I will soon have an article published on Samuel Meeker in Financial History magazine (spring issue I believe) connected to the Museum of American Finance. 

http://www.moaf.org/publications-collections/financial-history-magazine/index

This will be the first time that the Stuart portrait will be published in a big way for the public to see, although the article will be mainly on Meeker.  Of course Stuart is mentioned (as signalling a particular level of wealth), and a description of the portrait (along with image.)

I will let you know when it is out on the stands.  I am hoping (but dare not ask), that the portrait will be on the cover!

I will definitely buy your book.  How exciting~ congratulations.

Regards,

Beth

fThe museum is located at 48 Wall Street, on the corner of William Street, in New York City. I encourage a visit to this museum, to better understand where we were, and where we are today economically, and where we are going!e

UPDATE-- my article is only a "biography" and therefore, according to the editor and I quote: "Unfortunately we’re not able to put this on the cover because it’s not the lead article.  It would be extremely rare for us to include a biography as a cover story, unless it tied in with one of the Museum’s exhibits.  I’m pleased to include the article in this issue, though, as I think it’s an interesting piece on a person most of our readership will be unfamiliar with.  Also, I think I mentioned I used to live in one of the Meeker houses in NJ, so it’s fun for me on a personal level."

Well, I'll find a magazine soon enough...where my guy can be on the cover!
If any of my readers have an idea for an appropriate publication, ie the ARTS and so on, please write!

To check for authenticity of a Stuart? Similarity! Samuel Gatliff, the rise and fall of a Philadelphia merchant

Not as much is known about Samuel Gatliff (1773/74-1806) as is known about his pretty wife Elizabeth (painted by Stuart)~ her father represented Virginia in Congress (also painted by Stuart). Her grandfather C. Braxton was a prominent Virginia planter, politician, and signer of the Declaration of Independence.
Gatliff was a partner in a wool manufacturing firm in England before making his way to Philadelphia and marrying Elizabeth there.  Clearly he offered good prospects since he was able to marry a woman from the social elite of the city.  The couple had 4 children, and were able to live not far from Samuel Meeker on the banks of the Schuylkill which indicates wealth (or at least the show of it~I have not figured out where exactly but it seems to have been on the east bank) He is listed as a merchant at 124 Spruce St. in Philadelphia city directories 1798-1803, advertising “thirty bales of stuffs” for sale in 1803 in the Gazette of the United States...Elizabeth’s circle of friends included Eleanor Parke Custis (G. Washington’s grand-daughter).

A problem in determining the authenticity of a Stuart is that he did not sign his portraits.  When asking oneself, is this portrait by Stuart?  Check first of all for...SIMILARITY.
I have picked the image of Gatliff to show the remarkable similarities between this portrait and Meeker's.  Stuart seemed to like to have his 'merchants' hold papers which most likely indicate bills of lading or some kind of trade correspondence.  They are dressed very similarly in a fashionable way, similar pose (seated at a table covered with a red cloth) turned slightly to the right with face looking at the viewer, similar size (3/4 length), similar accents (red velvet chair.) Perhaps Meeker paid a bit more for the curtain/sky background, also a sitter could probably choose to pay a bit more for the papers. The perfect men of commerce.  Merchant Gatliff has rather pointy and pale features, perhaps even by this time his health was suffering (note the difference in posture between Gatliff and Meeker)... 

c. 1798 Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts

Yet as prominently as Gatliff displayed his "success" (living in a villa on the Schuylkill, Stuart portrait with more expensive add-ons) which was also important to inspire trust, this also shows that he seems to have extended his credit too widely. His trading practice began to wobble.  The business partner of Gatliff's, still in Yorkshire England, was obliged to leave England and travel to Philadelphia in the effort to right the problems now apparently causing substantial financial distress (from this partner we know that the Gatliffs lived on the Schuylkill river bank) but this friend was unable to help, accused Gatliff of financial misconduct, and the business partners dissolved the friendship and business ties were cut.  Gatliff did not have time to prove that he had any talent or the ability to shed debt, he died 3 years later at the young age of 32 (consumption?), and Elizabeth went with her four girls to live with her father in Va.

When determining the authenticity of a Stuart, besides checking Stuart's style and similarities to your portrait, check whether other relatives were done by Stuart; he often painted an extended circle of relatives.  (Meeker's first cousin William P Meeker was painted by GS. He had neither papers, nor sky, nor chair.)

Next: the portrait of Elizabeth Gatliff and child.

George Washington portrait: an authentic Gilbert Stuart? & a Stuart doggie and his collar

Elizabeth,

Hello - I was wondering if you could help me out here. I just purchased this oil painting of George Washington and the seller did not know who the artist was. In fact, neither did I until I looked closely at the signature. From my research Gilbert Stuart did not sign his artwork which leads me to believe this is not authentic. However, from what I can tell I do know the painting is a true oil painting and not a print and it is very old. The owner said he got it from an estate sale and estimated it from 1870-1890. The canvas on the back is very old and brown from age.

My questions are: could this be a Gilbert Stuart? I highly doubt, but if it's not what's more interesting is why would someone sign his name to pass it off? the painting is of very good quality so I assume the original artist was someone who was very talented too. I just find it very interesting how many hands this could have passed through with either knowing it was unauthentic or who's put the signature there etc. Were his paintings counterfeit a lot in the late 1800's? Sorry I am rambling, just curious to understand this painting more...

Thanks,
Tony

Hello Tony~Thanks for your message, when I have a bit more time I will more closely inspect (try to enlarge) your graphics. 

But a few points here:

My portrait of Meeker was painted in 1803 when Stuart was in his 40s.  He was born in 1755, so Stuart's working years were much previous to the dates of 1870-1890 which were suggested by the previous owner of your painting (which shows that he knew nothing about Stuart).

Stuart painted 75 head and shoulder replicas of his Athenaeum portrait of Washington (the famous portraits have names), download this portrait and compare it to your image....if there are differences this would be the major clue/evidence that the work is not by Stuart.  Stuart was absolutely meticulous about nailing the image of the sitter.

Go to the portrait of George Thomas John Nugent and look at this portrait closely, for this is one of the portraits that Stuart signed.  If he did sign a portrait, it was often in a whimsical way so his signature on this portrait was on the dog's collar. Here you can see an authentic signature, with the G formed in a different way, your signature has no semblance to the authentic one...most likely your portrait artist's own whimsical idea!

But thanks for sending the graphics~

Again I am not an expert ie decorated with doctorate title~however I think your doubts were in the right direction.  As for counterfeiting, one can be sure, esp in the 1800s when memories of Stuart's fame were even more pronounced and the style more coveted, that this was prevalent.

Elizabeth

Gilbert Stuart's portrait of George Thomas John Nugent 1789-90

signed on the dog's collar G. Stuart

UCLA Hammer Museum, LA:

The Armand Hammer Collection, Gift of the Armand Hammer Foundation

detail collar on the cutie dog

Is this portrait by Gilbert Stuart?

Hello,

I saw your blog online, and was hoping you might help me out. We have a watercolor portrait that my mother-in-law said was a Gilbert Stuart, purchased in 1965 in an antique store in the Ozark Mountains. It measures 15-1/2” wide x 20”, unsigned. Any guidance from you would be deeply appreciated.

Thank you, Irene

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Irene,

Thanks for your note! The portrait does not have the hallmarks of a Stuart portrait... Most importantly, Stuart painted so close to reality that the sitter could expect something akin to a photograph. Portraits of women were not idealized, the backgrounds were often similar to the portraits of men (red curtain, bit of sky), accents such as gauzy flowers adorning the canvas were not something he indulged in. This portrait just does not look like a Stuart to me, from looking at the graphic. There is nothing about it, that makes me think...maybe! Stuart has a certain type of strong swish to his accents, the sitters do not appear in a fog of sweetness, but as they appear in reality~ The clothing also does not strike me as being from the period from when Stuart was working. The face was the most important aspect of a Stuart painting so that often the rest of the portrait is nondescript, essentially, in comparison to the face. There is no differentiation in this portrait between the quality & style of the face, and the rest of the portrait....This looks to be a portrait whose style was at the direction of the sitter, not a sitter who was obliged to accept the direction/style of the master artist (which was the way Stuart worked, no woman could ask for flattery in her portrait--he was known to become very angry if such a thing happened). This is, simply, not his style. I am about 97% sure that it is not a Stuart, without seeing the portrait firsthand.

I hope this helps. Can I post your graphic and query on my blog? I would not need to include your name.

Thank you again, Beth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Beth,

Thank you very much for your reply. Disappointing news, of course, but this is the type of information I was looking for, so I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments.Yes, by all means, you may use the image and anything else here.

Sincerely,

Irene

Gibby’s talent for music and his friend Ben

Benjamin Waterhouse by Gilbert Stuart 1775

IN the last entry Gibby was described as being better known in his youth as a superbly talented organist. He also composed music. A very close friend of his early days, Benjamin Waterhouse, later physician and professor at Harvard Medical School, described a get-together: “he attempted to enrapture me, by a newly studied classical composition. I exerted all the kind attention I could muster up for the occasion, until his sharp eye detected by my physiognomy, that I did not much relish it. He coloured, sprang up in a rage, and striding back and forth the floor, vociferated, ‘you have no more taste for music than a jack-ass! and it is all owing to your stupid quaker education.’ To which I replied, ‘tis very likely, Gibby, and that education has led me to relish silence more than all the passionate noise uttered from instrumental or vocal organs.’ Stuart’s reply to this, with a laugh, was, ‘a good hit, Ben!—but really I wish you had more taste for music.’ ‘I wish so too, Stuart,’ said his friend,’but I am determined not to admire more in a picture than what I acutally see within its frame; nor affect raptures for music I do not feel.’ "

Waterhouse left for England early 1775 to study medicine. The revolutionary war negatively impacting the business of portraiture, Stuart left himself for London, where he arrived with few funds in November of the same year. Waterhouse had already gone to Edinburgh to further his studies thus was not in a position to help out. Stuart took cheap lodgings, and found a position as church organist.

Dr. Waterhouse observed that “Stuart’s acknowledged advancement in the theory and practice of music was a fresh evidence of his vigorous intellect and various talents, which constitutes genius. He certainly had that peculiar structure of the brain or mind which gives an aptitude to excel in every thing to which he chose to direct his strong faculties.” p 168-170 History of the Rise and Progress of The Arts of Design in the United States (listed on the right.)

Dr. Waterhouse is also well known for being the first doctor to test the smallpox vaccine in the United States.

Stuart's earliest known painting (age 14); and lil' ms Daisy joins my household

Stuart's earliest known painting; two spaniels belonging to Dr. William Hunter

The Hunter Dogs ca. 1769

The Preservation Society of Newport County, Newport, R.I.

EARLY STUART
The following, below, is quoted from Gilbert Stuart by Barratt and Miles (see info on right) p 13

“Stuart learned to sketch faces and caricatures from an African slave, Neptune Thurston, and had in common with his best friend, Benjamin Waterhouse, a talent for drawing. He was better known in his youth as a superbly talented organist, the prize pupil of Trinity Church organist John Knoechel. Indeed, whenever and wherever in need, Stuart would seek employment at a local church before he would solicit commissions for portraits.
Stuart’s earliest known painting dates from about 1769 and portrays two spaniels belonging to Dr. William Hunter, nestling under a Townsend-Goddard side table. That year, Hunter had two painters in his employ; the 13-year-old Stuart and the recently arrived Aberdeen artist Cosmo Alexander (1724-1772)....”

AND...quoted from The Life and Works of Gilbert Stuart by George Mason p4
“No portfolio of Stuart’s early drawings has been preserved, for he had no portfolio. No record has been made of his early efforts—no record could be made,--for the first brush of a sleeve, the first passing shower, effaced what he had sketched with chalk or charcoal, on a fence, a slab, or a tail-board.” & p 5 “The earliest product of his pencil, so far as is known, is a picture owned by Thomas R. Hunter, Esq., of Newport, R.I., a couple of Spanish dogs. The following is the history of the picture, which has been carefully preserved;Dr. William Hunter, who came to America in 1752, had attained to a high position in his profession, and practiced medicine over a wide circuit of the country, having Newport for its centre. During a professional visit at the house of Gilbert Stuart, he asked Mrs. Stuart who made all the drawings in chalk and charcoal on the sides of the barn. She replied by pointing to her son, with whom the Doctor at once entered into conversation. Before leaving, the Doctor made the lad promise (the boy’s mother having given her consent) that he would come to Newport on election day and make him a visit. The boy was true to his engagement, and the Doctor, interested in the young sketcher, gave him brushes and colors, and bade him paint a picture of the two dogs that were lying on the floor under a table. Stuart at once entered upon the work, and while engaged in painting the picture, remained a guest in the house of Dr. Hunter."

Below is lil ms Daisy, she joined my household about 3 weeks ago. Lots of work! But as cute as the spaniels...!

I'm going to enter Daisy into the next Westminster Kennel Club dog show!

(competeing as a "Cheagle" ~a Beagle and a Chihuahua~:)

A ‘1% er’ brings art, and a piece from our maestro, to, of all places, Arkansas!

Dr. William Smith by Gilbert Stuart Philadelphia,1800

The heiress daughter of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton is bringing art to Middle America by opening a new museum featuring an immense collection of American art. The 217,000-square-foot Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art is located in the small town of Bentonville in northwest Arkansas, which is the headquarters of Wal-Mart. Alice Walton, the 62-year-old billionaire heiress splits her time between Bentonville and her Texas ranch.

I saw a blurb on the opening of this museum on a TV show, and all of a sudden I saw what to me seemed to be a portrait in the style of Gilbert Stuart in the background! I immediately wrote the museum, to see if I had actually seen a Stuart! I received a response:
Thank you for your interest in Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art. Gilbert Stuart’s William Smith, ca. 1801 – 1802 is part of our permanent collection. It is located in our Colonial Gallery.

~see the Stuart portrait of Dr. William Smith's daughter and read about Dr. Smith, by clicking here.
This portrait sold recently at auction at Sotheby's; the estimate for the portrait was between 800,000 - 1,200,000 USD.

The museum sounds lovely:
"Surrounded by 120 acres of forests and gardens, Crystal Bridges offers a revitalizing environment for experiencing art and cultural events. The grounds are a place of natural and artistic beauty, equally suited for quiet reflection and exploring with family and friends.
Six pedestrian and multi-use trails wind through the campus, connecting the surrounding neighborhoods, parks, and downtown Bentonville to the Museum."
Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art http://www.crystalbridges.org/

Now those of you who live in Bentonville will be able to view a genuine Gilbert Stuart.
Thankyou, Alice.

Stuart was obliged to include Samuel Meeker's hand!

In the last post I quoted from a letter written by famed academic Reverend Horace Holley to his wife; who, knowing Stuart personally as well as being familiar with his style of work, commented: "He is the best portrait painter in our country, and probably not inferior, in regard to the face, to any artist in the world. But he paints hands, limbs, and drapery badly. [He spends the force of his genius on the characteristic expression of the countenance, and cares little for the other parts of the picture.]" Holley was describing his encounter with the Monroes at the White House (1817), and all were discussing Stuart's commission for Jame's Monroe's portrait. (The President's hands were not included.)

One does not have to look far to find evidence of the truth of the Reverend’s words. Here I provide detail of Meeker’s hand. Note the rather broad stokes and unrefined treatment. Meeker holds some papers~ this certainly indicates Meeker’s wish that the portrait indicate his prominent position as a ‘merchant’. Logs, bookkeeping, manifests etc were not done ‘on the computer’, but written out by hand often in large ledger books. Thus Stuart was obliged to paint Meeker’s hand.

President Monroe's portrait just below, no hands. Meeker's first cousin and a business partner (click here) William Meeker, no hands. (W. Meeker was posted in Liverpool, and died on a sea voyage back to New Orleans in 1812.)

Sun-burnt cheeks? ..."The painting of Mr. Monroe then will meet your taste precisely." 1817

The Reverend Horace Holley from Boston was elected the president of Transylvania University in Kentucky in 1817. In the following years the University grew in stature and was compared to Harvard, Yale and Princeton, its grand reputation as a higher seat of learning reaching to Europe. Before ten years had passed however, Holley’s Christian persuasion, being a Unitarian, cost him his position and he resigned in March of 1827. After this, the great university declined. Holley went from Kentucky to Louisiana, where he attempted to re-organize the College of New Orleans. Late in the summer Horace and his wife Mary took passage for New York, but he contracted yellowfever, and passed away on July 31, 1827. Transylvania University existed until the Civil War, after which time it was never really revived as a University.

The minister was well connected, being friends with previous Presidents. He wrote to Mary: “Mr. Jefferson is a plain looking old gentleman, draped in a blue coat with yellow buttons, a buff jacket, a pair of snuff colored corduroy pantaloons, blue and white cotton stockings and black slippers up at the heels.” Holley’s papers include several letters from James Monroe. On his way to take up his position at the University, Mr Holley visited with the Monroes at the White House-he then wrote his wife a long letter describing the event, indicating each speaker in the conversation:

“There is a full length portrait of general Washington in the parlour, painted by Stewart. This led me to ask Mr. Monroe about the portrait of himself by Stewart. But I think I will give you the conversation as it happened...[Holley] That is a painting by Stewart I perceive. [Mrs. Monroe] Yes, and it is a very good one. [Holley] He is the best portrait painter in our country, and probably not inferior, in regard to the face, to any artist in the world. But he paints hands, limbs, and drapery badly. He spends the force of his genius on the characteristic expression of the countenance, and cares little for the other parts of the picture. [Monroe] He ought to paint nothing but the head, and should leave the rest to such artists as Copely, who was said to be the painter of collars, cuffs, and button holes. [Holley] Stewart is not ambitious of the distinction acquired in that way. His favorite expression in regard to his portraits, to show that he does as little as possible in the way of drapery, is “that picture has never been to the tailor’s” ...Have you ever received your portrait from Stewart yet? [Monroe] No Sir. It is not his habit to finish a picture and send it home. Have you ever seen it at his room? [Holley] Yes, Sir, several times. [Monroe] How far is it finished? [Holley] Nothing but the head. [Mrs. Monroe] Is it a good likeness? [Holley] A remarkably good one. It is the general opinion that it is one of the artist’s happiest efforts with his pencil. You will be pleased with it, but will observe immediately, when you see it, that your husband was sun-burnt as a traveller ought to be, and that the artist has been so long in the habit of copying faithfully what he sees that he has given this in the shading of the picture. [Mrs. Monroe] I shall not like it the less for that. I think Stewart generally makes the color of the cheeks too brilliant, especially in the portraits of men, as in that of general Washington. [Holley] The painting of Mr. Monroe then will meet your taste precisely."

Notwithstanding his fame as an American educator of distinguished ability, Holley is known for his letters to his wife.

James Monroe by Gilbert Stuart 1817

James Monroe (April 28, 1758 – July 4, 1831) was the fifth President of the United States (1817–1825). Monroe was the last president who was a Founding Father of the United States, most noted for his proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, which stated that the United States would not tolerate further European intervention in the Americas.

The letter is quoted from “Gilbert Stuart” by Barratt and Miles, p 312, it is taken from the Horace Holley Papers, letter L40, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

A FINE PORTRAIT BY STUART OF JOHN ADAMS, 1824

John Adams by Gilbert Stuart 1824 at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston

This later portrait of our second President of the United States John Adams (1735-1826) is known to have been painted by Stuart sometime in 1824, as his son wrote that the painting was completed during Adam’s ninetieth year. It is generally acknowledged to be fine depiction by the portrait artist despite Stuart's advancing age. Barratt/Miles write: “Since he first painted Adams in 1800, Stuart’s brushwork had softened, becoming less precise, and showing signs of a tremulous hand.” p 322 (see book info in permanent area on right) "Completion of the portrait apparently took a full year." p 322

Also according to Barratt/Miles taken from the diary of Son J.Q Adams: John Quincy Adams “called...upon Stewart the Painter, and engaged him to go out to Quincy, and there paint a Portrait of my father—More than twenty years have passed since he painted the former portrait, and time has wrought so much of change on his countenance that I wish to possess a likeness of him as he now is. Stewart started some objections, of trivial difficulties—The want of an Easel, of a room properly adapted to the light; but finally promised that he would go, and take with him his best brush...”

In the last post (scroll down), two portraits are shown, attributed to Gilbert Stuart. Stuart was so willing, and capapble, to paint an aged sea captain and his wife in steady, plentiful detail, yet had ‘trivial objections’ to painting the second president of the United States at this point in time? I think it can be easily speculated that the pair of Schermerhorn portraits are wrongly attributed to the great master. {Which would explain the low starting bid.} Did the sellers/buyers consult any experts about the attribution?

A Fighter for Our Liberty

“It was in the courtrooms of Massachusetts and on the printed page, principally in the newspapers of Boston, that Adams had distinguished himself. Years of riding the court circuit and his brilliance before the bar had brought him wide recognition and respect. And of greater consequence in recent years had been his spirited determination and eloquence in the cause of American rights and liberties.” “John Adams” by David McCullough, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2001