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

Sally follows Matilda's example; Another young American, Sally McKean weds the successor of the Marquis Yrujo and enters European nobility

The year is 1804, Sarah [Sally] is dressed in the fashionable mode of the time inspired by the famed Empress Josephine of France. Gauzy empire-waisted low cut dress, sleeves and neckline draped with delicate pearls and showing much skin, hair up to expose the delicate slope of the neck...a perfect replica of the grace and beauty embodied by Josephine Bonaparte (who’s beauty was acknowledged by all who saw her, marred only slightly by her teeth.) Indeed Sally bears a similar physical appearance to Josephine.

In the last post we read about the young (16yrs) American girl Matilda Stoughton, who married the minor Spanish attache’ Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot (1794) out of love and visions of diplomatic glory, while he entertained the pleasing notion of becoming the permanent envoy of Spain in America through the marriage to the American. Alas he was caught in a bribery scandal, the couple was sent home to Spain, and Jaudenes was replaced by Yrujo who had arrived from Spain in 1796. Jaudenes introduced the Spanish diplomat to Thomas McKean, Pennsylvania’s chief justice and later governor.
It is possible that they met that year at a dinner party in Philadelphia:

“Among the first to arive was Chief Justice McKean,accompanied by his lovely daughter, Miss Sally McKean. Miss McKean had many admirers, but her heart was still her own...The next to arrive was Senor Don Carlos Martinez de Yrujo, a stranger to almost all the guests. He spoke with ease, but with a foreign accent, and was soon lost in amazement at the grace and beauty of Miss McKean.” [Anne Hollingsworth Wharton, Salons Colonial and Republican(Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1900) p 154]

Later after the government moved to Washington:“Philadelphia beauty and grace were well represented in Washington during Mr. Jefferson’s administration by the wives of the British and Spanish ministers....the dark, dreamy eyes of the Marchioness Yrujo, which look forth from her portrait by Stuart, seem to proclaim her more truly a child of the South than the blue eyes and blond coloring of her Spanish husband. This young woman, as Sally McKean, had been an intimate friend of Mrs. Madison and her sister Anna Payne, and later in the diplomatic circle of the capital they renewed their acquaintance." [Anne Hollingsworth Wharton, Social Life in the EarlyRepublic (Williamstown, Ma: first pub. 1902; 1970 edition) p 115]

Yrujo was created a Marquis in 1803, thus through the marriage in 1804 Sally entered European nobility and became Marchioness de Casa Yrujo. Yrujo’s career in Washington was not much more successful than Jaudenes, although possibly more ethical. He disputed the egalitarianism of the Jefferson administration, insisting on formal protocol of the entry and proper seating of diplomats and their wives at official dinners. He was strongly at odds with the administration on the Louisiana Purchase. The definant minister returned to Philadelphia 1805 and left to return to Spain in 1808.

Sarah McKean, Marquesa de Casa Yrujo

1804, Washington

collection Mr. and Mrs. Thomas R. McKean

Empress Josephine Bonaparte

by Pierre-Paul Prud'hon 1805

Louvre

The power of Spain in America prompts Matilda and Josef to engage in matrimony and have their portraits done by Stuart in full pomp, but the glory did not last long.

In the last post the story of Matilda Stoughton was told, a young American girl of 16 who most likely married her minor Spanish attache’ Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot (1794) out of love, whereas he most likely married her to advance his career, perhaps entertaining the pleasing notion of becoming the permanent envoy of Spain in America. Josef surely felt he had made a catch, some considered Matilda a beauty, but her father’s position for thirty years as the Spanish Consul in Boston might have been the persuading factor in the match. One can also imagine that a 16 year old would be a willful young lady, if in love....

America at the time was under the thumb of Spain in many ways; until 1795 Spain was in control of navigation of the Mississippi River and transport through the port of New Orleans. The Spanish from 1762 were the owners of the vast region known as the Louisiana territory, stretching from the Mississippi River to the beginning of the Rocky Mountains (taken back by Napoleon in 1800). Spanish currency, a gold coin called the pistole, was commonly in use. Matilda surely had her father’s eager consent to marry this young diplomat from her father’s native homeland, and the father must have thought that Josef had every prospect of rising to the elite of the social/political set. Josef’s outfit in the Stuart portrait, a dark blue velvet coat over scarlet waistcoat and breeches and threaded profusely with silver embroidery, matching in opulence Matilda’s billowing confection of silks and diamonds, boasts of wealth and aristocracy. Yet within the two years, it is suggested that Josef was involved in some type of corruption, and the brilliant couple was sent back in disgrace to Spain, living out the rest of their lives at the family’s ancestral estate, a vineyard. They live on in their sumptuous portraits.

 New York 1794; Matilda and Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot 

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Monthly pick: Matilda Stoughton [de Jaudenes y Nebot] has big dreams and marries a minor Spanish attaché; the portrait by Gilbert Stuart

1794 Matilda in silks, diamonds, pearls, & snowflake piochas (hairpins) 

At age 16, in 1794, Matilda Stoughton was the dutiful daughter and married a man of great prospects; or so it was thought at the time.  Officially recognizing the United States government under George Washington in Philadelphia, Charles IV of Spain sent an ambassador with two trade attachés, one of which was Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot.  The two trade attachés carried on negotiations with regard to Spanish Louisiana, navigation on the Mississippi river, trade with Cuba, amongst other issues. [Spanish and U.S. negotiators concluded the Treaty of San Lorenzo, also known as Pinckney’s Treaty, on October 27, 1795. The treaty was an important diplomatic success for the United States. It resolved territorial disputes between the two countries and granted American ships the right to free navigation of the Mississippi River as well as duty-free transport through the port of New Orleans, then under Spanish control. Prior to the treaty, the western and southern borders of the United States had been a source of tension between Spain and the United States.]

 Marrying the Spanish Consul’s daughter allowed Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot to stay in the United States where he surely happily envisioned being able to stay as a permanently ensconced envoy of Spain (like his father-in-law).  But by 1796, charged with corruption, he was sent back home where he returned to his family’s ancestral estate, a vineyard near Palma, Majorca.  Matilda had surely imagined a more illustrious outcome of the marriage.  But at least the two had their Stuart portraits which were commissioned for the occasion of their wedding.  Which is why the two are remembered today. 

FROM LAWRENCE PARK

Louisa Carolina Matilda Stoughton was the second daughter of Don Juan (John) Stoughton who, for thirty years previous to his death in 1820 in his 76^th year, was the Spanish Consul in Boston.  He was prominent in the establishment of the first Roman Catholic Cathedral in the United States, erected in Boston. Esther Fletcher, whose death in 1789 is noticed in a contemporary Boston newspaper, and who was the mother of his daughter Louisa, was either Stoughton’s first or second wife.  Louisa Carolina Matilda was well known in Boston, in her youth, for her beauty.  In 1794 she married Don Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot.

New York, 1794. ....Her dress is of white flowered silk, finished at the neck with a dainty fichu edged with lace.  Her luxuriant hair is powdered and a coronet-shaped headdress with two tall feathers is set on top of her head in the center.  Nestling in her hair, at the base of the headdress, are clusters of jewels.  Jewels are in her ears, around her neck, on her dress, and at her wrists.  By her side is a table, with a red velevet cover, on which are two leather-bound books, one open as though she had been reading.  Her hands are in her lap and she holds a closed fan.  A brownish-pink curtain is draped in the background, showing clouds and a sky of blue and pink at the right. In the upper left-hand corner under a coat of arms is the following inscription: “Dona Matilde Stoughton de Jaudenes-Esposa de Don Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot Comisario Ordenador de Los Reales Exercitos de Su Magestad Catholica y su Ministro Embiado cerca de los Estados Unidos de America.  Nacio en la Ciudad de Nueva-York en los Estados Unidos el 11 de Enero de 1778.”

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

The two were married in New York, and there Josef commissioned their two portraits to be done by Stuart.  Was he in love, or did he only wish to advance his career? “Scholars have described him as a “dandy and spendthrift,” a “swarthy Spanish provocateur,” “arrogant,” “slippery,” “shifty,” and even “cruel.”   

(From the Met book Gilbert Stuart [from Albert Ten Eyck Gardner, “Fragment of a Lost Monument,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, n.s.6 March 1948, p 190] p 125), 

Next; Josef's portrait.

Present day descendants of Phoebe Meeker (twin of Samuel)

As mentioned before, Samuel gifted his Stuart portrait to twin sister Phoebe, most likely on their 40ieth birthday in 1803 (they were born in NJ Westfields in 1763).  Most certainly there was a lavish celebration at Samuel's country estate known as Fountain Green (click here for a post on the villa-or go to the fixed labels on the right for all posts on Samuel's estate near Philadelphia along the Schuylkill river).  

Phoebe married Job Brookfield, and the Meeker name was gone. Their daughter Mary married a Martin and the Brookfield name was gone.  Other marriages by women and the name changed from Martin (see Carrie Martin m. Cory in the post before this or click here), to Cory (see fixed labels on right for Cory), then Ahrens (my mom is Carolyn Cory now 84 who married my dad John Ahrens).  Here is a photo of this generation of Ahrens (with the exception of my daughter Lily K. in the red skirt when I married Willy Kley, a prof of astrophysics in Germany.)  The Meeker twins, Samuel and Phoebe would be proud of this batch of descendants.  Taken a few months ago.
Samuel had no direct descendants as his son passed away at a young age. Click here or scroll down 2 posts.  His son Samuel Hampton Meeker b. 1796 died May 21 1822.  Exactly 190 years ago today. 

Dr. Ben Cory's son Lewis marries Carrie Martin from the Westfields NJ & ...a remarkable genetic similarity to the Stuart portrait!

The text above "The Cory Brothers Modernized Medicine in SC County" (written by me) was just recently published in the March/April medical Bulletin of the Santa Clara County and Monterey County Medical Association (click on it for a bigger view). The brothers Drs Ben and Jack were instrumental in developing public health early on in Santa Clara county California (aka silicon valley.)  Dr. Ben Cory's son Lewis (b. 1861 San Jose California) was the first lawyer in Fresno Ca, he married Carrie Martin  (b. 1862 Rahway NJ) pictured above, who grew up in the Westfields New Jersey. Carrie is the gt gt grandaughter of Phoebe Meeker who was gifted the Stuart portait of her twin brother Samuel Meeker on their 40ieth birthday. Carrie eventually inherited the portrait and brought it to Fresno California where she and Lewis raised their family including son Ben Cory my grandfather. Notice the genetic similarities between Samuel in the portrait and the photo-portrait of Carrie.  Stunning.


Carrie is the daughter-in-law of Dr. Ben Cory, and my gt grandmother. More on Carrie and her family in the next post!
~click here for the provenance of the portrait~ 

the merchant banker Samuel Meeker and his own tragedy, his son

With my interest in economics alongside my ever-ongoing and abiding interest in the merchant Samuel Meeker, I have started to read a book "The House of Morgan" by Ron Chernow. He makes the point that often business was passed to the sons who were groomed for the takeover.  It took years to build up trust, and this trust was built upon and continued by future generations.

He writes: "Since merchant bankers financed foreign trade, their bills had to be honored on sight in distant places, so their names had to inspire instant trust."

I think this concept works very well in Samuel Meeker's case; does not his portrait radiate trust? We know that Meeker engaged in the trade of goods, sending goods to Liverpool where his first cousin William was the agent, who would arrange for sale and use the profits to buy goods and ship items back to Philadelphia. It can be sure that Meeker, Denman & Co did not receive loans for these business activities, but funded them on their own, plowing back growing profits into the business.

Samuel Meeker played a major role in the creation of the new elite merchant class in the city of Philadelphia, by now established as an important financial and cultural center. All evidence points to the man being a talented, motivated and successful participant and opportunist.  Samuel would have definitely been grooming his young son to take over his successful business.

The accounting ledgers of the Morrises, a prominent Philadelphia family contain accounts showing Meeker conducting trade in New Orleans, Ohio, and Kentucky, besides the overseas trade.Besides business and banking, Meeker became involved in marine insurance which played a crucial role in supporting the rapidly expanding trade of the American colonies throughout the eighteenth century. In the early years merchants had obtained insurance in London, but by the time Samuel Meeker arrived in Philadelphia, the city was the center for the writing of insurance against losses at sea from all causes and to a lesser degree losses on land by fire. The Napoleonic wars caused a great increase in demand for marine insurance. Samuel Meeker became actively involved in the booming, but risky, insurance business. About 1802 Messrs. Welsh, Fitzsimons, Dutihl, Bolen, & Meeker established a new insurance company, The Delaware Insurance Company of Philadelpha. Samuel was also on the Board of Directors of the Insurance Company of North America.

From all that I have found, I have determined that Samuel only had one son, who died at age 26. I don't know how he died, but hope to find out more.  It surely was a tragedy in his life. "Samuel's wife was Jane (born in 1763; married on March 3, 1792; died on July 1, 1845, aged 82 years), daughter of Jonathan Hampton. Her son Samuel Hampton Meeker, was born in 1796, and died on Tuesday, May 21, 1822, aged 26 years. He was named after Samuel Hampton, who, in 1785, was a private in the Third Company, Second Battalion, Philadelphia City Associators, Colonel James Read." This excerpt is from "The Second Troop Philadelphia City Cavalry" an article by W.A. Newman Dorland, 1903. To remind new readers, I am descended from Phoebe, Samuel's twin sister, to whom the portrait was gifted.

the War of 1812 (two hundred years ago this year) & a Meeker perishes

Two hundred years ago, America declared war on Britain. The reasons were many...the wartime atmosphere in Europe (Napoleon was wreaking his havoc) led to British seizure of American ships, more often than not forcing American sailors into the British navy, and the severe restrictions imposed by the British on American trade with France... In June 1812 James Madison became the first U.S. president to ask Congress to declare war.
Samuel Meeker at this time was 49. For many years before the outbreak of the war, Samuel Meeker was engaged in the trade/wholesale/retail business; his second firm was located at #20 South Front Street in Philadelphia and was called Meeker Denman & Co. comprising Samuel himself, his first cousin William Meeker, and brother-in-law Samuel Denman.
click on image below for a larger view
~The authenticity of Samuel Meeker as a work by Gilbert Stuart was further confirmed when I learned that his cousin William’s portrait was listed in the Lawrence Park volumes.~

William Meeker by Gilbert Stuart

[most likely c. 1803 as arrangement, hair, clothing are very similar to Samuel Meeker and the firm had received a large loan at this time ]The following information comes from an auction house, 2009;

PROVENANCE: From a fine Sudbury, MA home. CONDITION: Very good, restored, relined with inpainting. [In my opinion, the restorative touch-up work botched Stuart's portrait in a very major way. The portrait did not sell at auction.]

From Lawrence Park; William Meeker
“The present owner of this portrait was told at the time of its purchase that William Meeker was a member of the London firm of Meeker & Denman, shipping agents, and that he died en route to New Orleans in 1812. [slightly inaccurate, the firm was out of Philadelphia]
Canvas 28 x 23 inches.Bust, half-way to the right, with his light brown eyes directed to the spectator. His brown hair is brushed back, with curls in the neck, and tied with a black queue bow. He wears a dark blue, or blue-black, coat with small brass buttons; a very high white neckcloth and a ruffled shirt, with a bit of a white waistcoat showing. His complexion is ruddy and he wears small side-whiskers. The background is plain, of greenish-olive tones, becoming warm brown in the lower right corner.

New Orleans had been aquired with the Louisiana Purchase 9 years before, was an important and principal port since the American Revolution for importing and exporting—imported goods were warehoused and then distributed up the vast Mississippi river. William was the agent in England for the firm, selling goods sent from Philadelphia and purchasing items to be shipped back. As he died at sea en route to New Orleans in 1812, one might surmise that perhaps he was returning home with one of his shipments, and perished in a skirmish at sea. The region was targeted by the British and was attacked in a final battle in 1815, although a peace treaty was already in place. William Meeker never married.

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~:)

my most visited post; Dolly Madison is ushered to the White House door

“Stuart is all the rage…”

Dolly, widowed at age 25 with two children upon the sudden death of her first husband from the yellow fever epidemic which swept through the new capital of the United States, met 38 yr old James Madison in Philadelphia in 1794 after having moved there to be with her Quaker family. They were married soon afterwards.

Her parents were strict members of the “Society of Friends”. The young Dolly: “… was wondrously fair. Her mother, who would not permit her to wear jewels, taught her to take care of her complexion. She was sent to school with long gloves on her hands and arms, a close sunbonnet and a white linen mask on her face; in fact it is plain to see that in many ways great attention was bestowed upon the outward as well as the inward graces of the young Friend.” (Life and Letters of Dolly Madison by A. C. Clark, W F Roberts Co, Washington DC 1914; p 13, a quote by Harriet T. Upton.) Just before meeting with Madison; she wrote her friend Mrs. Lee, saying, “Dear friend, thou must come to me. Aaron Burr says that the ‘great little Madison’ has asked to be brought to see me this evening.” She was dressed in a mulberry-colored satin, with a silk tulle kerchief over her neck, and on her head an exquisitely dainty little cap, from which an occasional uncropped curl would escape. In this first interview, at her own house, she captured the heart of the recluse book-worm, Madison… always thought to be an irreclaimable old bachelor.” (Memoirs and Letters of Dolly Madison by Dolley Madison, Lucia Beverly Cutts, Houghton, Mifflin &Co. Boston and NY, 1887, p 15)

read more!! click here

and click here, George Washington stays put and why Dolly is ushered to the door!

and click here for the Stuart portrait of Dolly Madison's sister's portrait (and Gibby's nose)!

and here for Stuart portrait of James Madison

From the Lawrence Park Volume:

Mrs James Madison 1768-1849

Dorothy Todd Payne was a daughter of John and Mary (Coles) Payne of North Carolina. She married, first, in 1786, John Todd (died 1789) of Philadelphia, and second, in 1794, James Madison (q.v.).

Philadelphia, early in 1804. Canvas, 30 x 25 in. Mrs. Madison, writing to her sister from Montpelier, June 3, 1804, says: "Stuart has taken an admirable likeness of Mr. Madison; both his and mine are finished." This half-length portrait shows Mrs. Madison seated, half-way to the left, in a crimson upholstered chair, with her hands folded in her lap, and her grayish-blue eyes directed to the spectator. Her dark brown hair is dressed in curls on her forehead and in front of her ears. She wears a low-necked, short-sleeved white dress, trimmed with an edging of lace and two rows of narrow gold ribbon around the neck and sleeves. A yellow gauze scarf is draped over her right arm and is brought around onto the left arm of the chair. Around her neck a gold chain is wound four times, and a small gold and topaz brooch is fastened to the front of her dress. A crimson curtain is draped in the background and to the left is a column on a parapet with a cloud-flecked sky in the distance. ...This portrait of Mrs. Madison was bought at public auction just after her death by her adopted daughter, Anna Payne, afterwards the wife of Doctor Causten. Mrs. Causten bequeathed it to her daughter Mary Carvallo Causten, wife of John Kunkel of Washington, DC. On November 6, 1899, the portrait was acquired by the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia.

Does the General not exist?

This has NEVER happened to me before. My sleuthing has left me empty handed!!

A Gilbert Stuart painting of a male, in a fine red uniform, is up for auction at Christie's this coming January 26. If one is willing to shed a minimum of $25,000. one may offer up a bid; the price is determined to be somewhere between $25,000. to $35,000. This dashing warrior is named General R. Grenville.

But I can NOT find "General R. Grenville 1745-1823" anywhere. He is not listed in any known source (to me) of Stuart paintings including of course the Lawrence Park volumes and George Mason. I can not find him anywhere on the internet. What?? A General that can not be found...on the internet? How possible is that? Usually any individual that was painted by Stuart had mounds of money and connections, and should be able to be found!

Is there no frame on the canvas? No date is provided for when the portrait was done, nor location. All rather odd.

If any of my readers has some information, please send it on over. !! If you plan to submit an offer on this portrait, which seems to have in fact all the hallmarks of a Stuart, I would check with the experts first. The man has a fancy name, but may not be who one thinks he is. !! And certainly there are/were expert copiers out there, willing to pass off a fake Stuart, I would imagine. Why does the history of the painting begin c. 1946? And what also raises my suspicion is that there are no other 'Grenvilles' painted by the master. Yes my Meeker was not listed by Park or Mason, but there was a Stuart painting of William Meeker listed in Park. That, in addition to my Provenance (click here for the history of ownership of the Meeker painting) from day one (Samuel gifted his portrait to his twin sister Phoebe on their 40 birthday--well ok the birthday part is my theory), is ample proof that Samuel is the genuine thing. Also in the above portrait, there is an inscription in the lower left naming the sitter. That was not usual for Stuart to do, although perhaps someone else painted in the inscription at a later date.

There is a Providence of 'General R. Grenville 1745-1823' , but what is left out is significant. This information is courtesy of Christie's. As is the image of the portrait of the general above.

Provenance (quoted directly from Christie's)
Captain Richard Neville, Butleigh Court, Glastonbury; Christie's, London, 5 April 1946 lot 58 (380 gns. to Polak).with Leggatt Brothers, London, 1953, where purchased byDaniel H. Farr.Anonymous sale; Sotheby's, London, 24 November 1965, lot 74 (£1400 to J. Maas).Vincent Price.with Sears, Roebuck and Co., Chicago, 1966, from whom purchased by the present owners. PROPERTY FROM THE COLLECTION OF DR. AND MRS. FRANCIS D. FOWLER

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

they seem authentic...Mr and Mrs Schermerhorn, for a (very) reasonable price!

Mr. and Mrs. Schermerhorn attributed to Gilbert Stuart c. 1825

Cowan's October 8 Fall Fine and Decorative Art Auction (Cincinnati) offered two Stuart portraits, Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius Schermerhorn. Now how is this..the estimate was only $1,000 - $2,000 and starting bid for $500.!
The Price Realized: $10,575.00. (Something is odd about the pricing here, Chinese artifacts are definitely the hot items in the auction circuit!)

The description was given:
Attributed to Gilbert Stuart (American, 1755-1828), ca 1825, includes two unsigned portraits of Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius Schermerhorn, both housed in decorative gilt and gesso frame; 32.5 x 25.5 in.

A New York sea captain, Mr. Schermerhorn became a successful merchant in the newly independent United States. Born in 1756 in the colonies, he died in 1826, shortly after this portrait was probably painted. Cornelius is shown in a three-quarter pose, seated in a mahogany Grecian chair against a swag of red drapery with blue gray sky in the background. The companion portrait of Mrs. Schermerhorn depicts her seated in a heavier gilt Grecian chair with red upholstery.

There was no other information offered on the portraits. If the portraits were done in 1825, then Mr. Schermerhorn would be 70 years old. Neither he nor his wife look to be much past 60, I am sceptical of the date given to the portraits (c. 1825). The pair are not in the Lawrence Park volumes, nor in (George) Mason. Gilbert Stuart, if in fact he completed these portraits in 1825, passed away 3 years later (1828)--and he certainly spent much time on some of the accents in these portraits, such as the shawl with the rose border. Unusual, since Gibby did not like to focus on much of anything except for the face. The hands are very well done as well. hmmmm.

I did some sleuthing on Mr. Schermerhorn and found this (courtesy Schermerhorn Genealogy and Family Chronicles):

Cornelius I. Schermerhorn lived at Schodack Landing, N. Y. He was a merchant and large land and vessel owner, several of his vessels being engaged in trade with the East Indies. In 1793 he was a Lieutenant in his father's regiment. In 1798 he was Captain of Light Infantry in Brig. Gen. Henry K. Van Rensselaer's Rensselaer Co. Brigade. 1798-1800 he was Adjutant in Col. Nicholas Staat's Rensselaer Co. Regiment. March 30, 1803, he was commissioned as Major and on March 12, 1810, as Lieutenant Colonel, and April 3, 1812, as Colonel of the 43rd Regiment, 8th Brigade, Third Division of the New York Militia under command of Brigadier-General Jacob A. Fort and Major General Henry Livingston. Colonel Schermerhorn served on the frontier with his regiment during the war of 1812.
Cornelius I. Schermerhorn held the office of assessor in Schodack in 1795, and from 1800 to 1809 was supervisor of the village. In 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811 and 1818 he was a member of the New York State Assembly, and during that service he way prominently identified with the plans for the inauguration of the Erie Canal.

A characterization from the pen of a grandson, reads as follows:
"My grandfather, Col. Cornelius I. Schermerhorn lived in the house which still stands (1905) a little north of the village of Schodack Landing and quite near the bank of the river. It is said that this house was built about 1760 with bricks brought from Holland. It is an excellent type of the better class of houses of the Dutch settlers. My grandfather in many respects resembled his father, though less domineering in character. He was silent and reserved and like his father a leader among the men with whom he was associated. Through his business ability he added materially to the property left him by his father, and at the time of his death in 1828, he owned nearly all the farms in the vicinity of the village. He had in addition large vessel interests, part of which was engaged in trade with China and the East.
His wife Elizabeth Monden, was an exceedingly bright, vivacious woman, with a highly developed religious nature. She was a descendent of Heer Johannes La Montagne, vice-director of the West Indies Co., at Fort Orange, Albany, from 1659 to 1664. The family was of Huguenot origin, emigrating from Holland about the middle of the 17th century. The name became changed to Monden, Monton, Munden."

With regard to authenticity Cowan's Auctions provides these words: Cowan's Auctions makes limited warranty concerning the authenticity of any lot for a period of 21 days following the sale. If a buyer is not satisfied that the item purchased is genuine, they may, at their expense, obtain the opinion of two mutually agreed upon recognized experts in the field of the disputed item. If these experts determine the item is not genuine, the buyer's sole remedy under the auctioneer's warranty shall be the rescission of the sale and refund of the original price paid for the item.

Also: Cowan's Auctions, Inc. assumes no responsibility for correct descriptions or defects in any lot, and makes no warranty in connection therewith.

WHODUNNIT was it a Stuart? (Continued...) What the experts say.

It is well-known that Stuart did not sign his paintings, he felt that a portrait of his WAS the signature! I received a mail, from someone who wanted to know if I thought that the portrait of his ancestor, David Bradlee, was a Stuart. Substantial similarities, but ...

I wrote “Hi Ted, Thanks for sending me your note! My inclination is to say that it is not a Stuart.... [click for post>Determining a genuine Gilbert Stuart portrait is not always easy!] I then suggested he send the image to the three reigning experts. One is Dr. Ellen G. Miles, Curator Emerita, Department of Painting and Sculpture, Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. The others are Carrie Barratt Associate Director for Collections and Administration at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Dorinda Evans, author of a bio on Stuart. The process is fascinating, I think.

Ted wrote Ellen Miles:
I think I may have a Gilbert Stuart portrait of one of my ancestors. I have attached a photo. David W. Bradlee, Boston, 1765-1833. He was in the shipping business. The letter that he holds reads, “Painted at the Columbian Museum Boston”. It is not signed. David’s father, David, participated in the Boston Tea Party. How can I authenticate the portrait? Ted W

Ted,
I have forwarded your inquiry to a couple of people who may have the answer; it’s definitely not by Stuart, in terms of technique and coloring. The inscription suggests it is either by Ethan Allen Greenwood, or by Edward Savage (it looks more like a Greenwood to me). You may hear directly from someone other than me! Ellen M.

Hi Ellen, Thank you for taking the time to look at the portrait. I really appreciate your input.

No problem. It’s nice to see a painting with an inscription that helps identify it! Plus, you know who the sitter is, which is very helpful! Let me know if you don’t hear anything within a week or two, okay? Thanks!

Does the inscription help since you know that Greenwood and Savage painted at the Columbian Museum in Boston?

About Savage and Greenwood, and the museum, I may have jumped too quickly! The portrait may not date from a date that is late enough for this to help with an attribution. On the museum itself, you can consult the Wikipedia entry on the Columbian Museum, which includes the following:“Daniel Bowen (ca. 1760–1856) established the Columbian Museum in Boston in 1795. Located "at the head of the mall" near the Boston Common, the museum's collection included items from Edward Savage's "New York Museum."…”..after 1807, Bowen suffered financial ruin, and withdrew from museum operations. William M. S. Doyle assumed directorship thenceforth, until 1825, when Ethan Allen Greenwood acquired the collections for his newly established New England Museum.”
Doyle was also a portrait painter.
Let’s wait to see what others say! Thanks. Ellen G. Miles (Dr.)

Carrie Barratt answered:
Dear Mr. Wight,
With apologies for the delay, I regret that I find no record in my books or files of a Stuart portrait of David W. Bradlee. The picture looks post-Stuart to me, perhaps by James Frothingham or another younger Boston artist who painted in his style. You could contact the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, which has many Boston portraits by Stuart to make a comparison. Sorry not to be of more assistance.
Carrie Rebora Barratt

from Dorinda, the most pragmatic and terse of the three (in my opinion):
Thanks for the images. Unfortunately, this is not by Gilbert Stuart. It looks as though it might have been over-cleaned on the face (down to the grayish ground) and then re-painted. I can't immediately identify this hand, but, from the costume, it was painted in the early 1790s. If you can be sure the inscription is original (clean cracks, or look at it under ultraviolet light in a darkened room for repaint in the last century), perhaps you could find out more about the museum. Good luck. Dorinda Evans


Ted wrote me after all these responses:
I am mad at my ancestor for being cheap and not getting Gilbert Stuart to do his portrait...especially when his first cousins had Stuart do theirs!

10 years later, Sept 11, 2011

On this day my highschool friend, visiting his daughter & family in San Jose Ca, came over the hill to spend the day with me. We went to ISB together, International School Bangkok. These pics are of Point Lobos. In this place of beauty we sat, talked, reminisced. Later we met up with my daughter for Thai dinner at the Star of Siam in Soquel. Jim served at ground-zero in the second week after the attack. He was part of a search and rescue team from Utah.

Samuel Meeker’s own ancestry (and therefore mine too!)

Samuel Meeker (detail) by Gilbert Stuart 1803 Philadelphia

Samuel Meeker could proudly point out his ancestry going back 5 generations to William Meeker (b 1620 d. 1690) ‘first associate’ of New Jersey & progenitor of all Meekers in the USA. William Meeker and sons Joseph and Benjamin were among the first eighty associates of Elizabethtown, the first English settlement in New Jersey. In the Revolution, a large number of Continental officers came from Elizabethtown. Many members of the Meeker family itself were known far and wide for their dedicated participation in this struggle for independence, and were famed for their “physical strength and moral courage.” The Pictorial Field Book of The Revolution by Benson J. Lossing Vol. 1 chap. 14 p 325 Their significant contribution to the war effort was also well known to Gen. George Washington, as Captain Meeker (Samuel’s father, for more click here) as well as Major Meeker (first cousin of Samuel’s father for more click here) are mentioned in letters during the time of the war.

A Long Line of Patriots
Long before the “Boston Tea Party”, the stage was set for the early Meeker settlers to be defiant of British authority, stemming from a lengthy and bitter contest over town rights. In 1664 a group of hardy colonists asked for, and were given permission by the newly installed British deputy governor, to buy a tract of land from the native Indians west of Staten Island. For many years afterwards, ownership of this land was the source of controversy and dispute between the ‘Associates’ who based their ownership rights on this purchase from the Indians, and the British ‘Proprietors’ who claimed the purchase to be invalid. The original purchasers, about 80 men, were named “the Elizabethtown Associates.” By 1670 the young ‘upstart’ Royal Governor P. Carteret was disregarding the claims of the Associates and even allotted land as a reward to his servant Richard Michel. The townspeople regarded his actions as unwarranted acts of usurpation. “William Meeker, Hur Tomson, Samuel Marsh, Sr., Joseph Meeker, Jeffrey Jones, Nicholas Carter, John Ogden Jr., and Luke Watson tore down Michel's fence, pulled clapboards from his house, and pigs went into Michel's property and destroyed his garden ‘full of necessary garden herbs.’ ” It was a day to be remembered in the annals of Elizabeth; a day for the inauguration of an open and determined resistance to all usurpation, and a manly defense of their vested rights.” (from History of Elizabeth, New Jersey by Rev. Edwin F. Hatfield 1868)

“During all the years the Meeker family had been a brave one that had helped make Newark history from the first Meeker settler [William Meeker], who was given the land on which the homestead stood after playing the constable in defiance of Carteret and pulling down some houses and fences of which he and the “Associates” didn’t approve. Thereby hangs a tale, for the beginnings of which one has to turn back Jersey pages to the 28th of October, 1664. There was then a tract of land lying west of Staten Island which some hardy colonists from Long Island and New Haven purchased and occupied. They were known as the “Associates” and among their number was this first Meeker of all, whom history dubs Goodman Meeker….”
(from The Meeker Family of Early New Jersey by Leroy Meeker 1973)

your ob('ient) se('rvant)...