Are these Gilbert Stuart portraits? & a comparison to Mrs. Yates

Pamela sent me an email with two images.
"See attached; I’m interested in hearing your thoughts. According to the family story passed down with the photos, the female portrait is of an American woman that was famous for being captured by the Indians. I think she either gave birth while in captivity, or shortly after she escaped.  My memory is not clear and I may do some family history research to see exactly who they are and how they relate. Let me know what you think."  Pamela

 Dear Pamela, it is my opinion that these two portraits are not done by the American master portrait painter Gilbert Stuart.  They do not seem to carry the hallmark excellence of a Stuart portrait; in addition to have no provenance history (history of ownership through the generations) or certain knowledge of who they are, is generally not a good basis to think that they are Stuarts!  Of course my family did not know that mine was a Stuart either, but it was known that the artist "was someone famous". And importantly, it is recorded that Stuart had painted another Meeker. Generally Stuart painted portraits of the rich and famous, mainly because they were the ones who could give him "bread", or in other words, pay good money for the portraits. What he charged at the time was what might be considered "extremely expensive"'--For example, collection of monies were taken up to commission Stuart portraits of George Washington.  He often knew the sitter, through elite social or family connections.  Always I tell my readers to keep in mind that portrait painting was very common as in this time period there was no other way to record a likeness.  Art, portrait painting, was taken up by one and all!    Here I have included the masterful portrait of Catherine Brass Yates by Stuart.

Compare the photographic quality and intensity, the naturalism of the Staurt portrait of this lady; she is about the same age as your portrait of the female.  The manipulation of the silver pigment, the different strategies for portraying the different materials! Husband Yates had an importing business, was a member of the New York State Chamber of Commerce.  He imported such things as flour sugar and rum--running a typical business triangle between NY, the West Indies and Britain. Catherine, daughter of a shoemaker, is dressed in precious fabrics, her sewing indicates that she was just as industrious as her husband.

So Pamela, write back when you have discovered more about the identity of the individuals in your portraits! I will do a follow-up story!

Catherine Brass Yates by Gilbert Start c.1793 National Gallery of Art

Meeker Coat of Arms

Taken from the booklet "The Meeker Family of early New Jersey" by Leroy J. Meeker 

Capitol Printing Co, Charleston, W.VA.1973

**

Samuel Meeker now joins, officially, the history of American finance! A bold, energetic smart merchant plays a role in commerce at the turn of the century in early America.

FINANCIAL HISTORY 

The Magazine of the Museum of American Finance
(in association with the Smithsonian Institution)  

Issue 106/ Spring 2013

"To have one's portrait painted by the eminent American artist Gilbert Stuart (1755-1828) signaled arrival at the pinnacle of social and economic success.  Famously described by First Lady Dolley Madison as being "all the rage", the artist was celebrated for his superlative portraits of Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.  But who was Stuart subject Samuel Meeker, and how was he able to commisssion the foremost painter of his time?"

by Elizabeth Ahrens-Kley

Samuel Meeker Merchant of Philadelphia

*

The MASTER portrait painter and a copyist; Dr. William Thornton, a man for all seasons! Now you can compare

Norma wrote, to ask whether I thought her portrait (shown below) was an original Stuart.  Take a look at it .... what do you think ....?
It had all the same characteristics of a Stuart...........!

HERE is why Stuart is considered a master portrait painter.

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

Norma: I bought this painting at an auction years ago—just discovered it was William Thornton.  Mine is the same size as is in the Nat. Gallery of Art and is quite old.  I was wondering if it was painted by Stuart? 

Me: Thanks for your message.  The picture does look old, and the style of the portrait is very clearly G. Stuart.  But the quality doesn't seem to be present; the body looks odd...and it would help if I could have a clearer vision of the face.  But from this vantage point it looks like a novice painter painted a portrait using Stuart's style!  Ask yourself if you are super impressed with the quality of the face... Beth 

Norma: I am super impressed by the whole painting.  Why would anyone at that time want a picture of Thornton? I thought Stuart wanted to improve the painting.

Thankyou for responding.

Hi Norma, Re: Why would anyone at that time want a picture of Thornton?? I checked the Park volumes and there is a Dr. William Thornton,..... Dr William Thornton lived from 1761-1828.  Your painting does not match accurately the Stuart painting of Thornton that is in the volumes, but there is enough resemblance to make me think that the artist, whoever it was, was doing another portrait of the doctor in the Stuart style.  The body in your portrait is too 'shallow', the lips too full. I will post your picture on my blog if that is ok, and put Dr W Thornton from the volumes on it too so you can compare.  [from original Stuart] the body is much fuller, the lips are thinner, there is a less "painted" look of the face.  I note that the info on the Dr. says that he was aminiature painter, and "copied some of Stuart's portraits.".....
Super interesting!  But it is clearly not an original Stuart~but a copy so old is very cool.
Beth 

Norma: I am sure you are right- just wanted to make sure it wasn't valuable.  You can tell it is very old.  Won't bother you anymore and thanks so much Thornton designed our US Capitol.

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

done by the sitter himself Dr. William Thornton?

From Lawrence Park V II
Doctor William Thornton 1761-1828
William Thornton was of Quaker parentage and born on the Island of Jost Van Dyke, West Indies.  He studied medicine in Edinburgh but was also an accomplished architect and artist as well.  He designed the Philadelphia Library Building erected in 1790.  In 1794 he became Commissioner of Public Buildings in Washington DC, and in 1800 he drew the first plans for the United States Capitol Building.  He also assisted Thomas Jefferson with the plans for the University of Virginia buildings.  Col John Tayloe's Octagon House was built after his plans.  From 1802 until his death he was the first Chief of the Patent Office.  He also invented a flutter-wheel steamboat and accused Robert Fulton of having wrongfully deprived him of it.  As a miniature painter he was above the average and copied some of Stuart's portraits.  In 1790 he married Anna Maria Brodeau, daughter of Mrs. Ann Brodeau.

Portrait of Dr. William Thornton, Washington 1804

National Gallery of Art

**

Stuart amuses his companions while travelling by coach.

The artist was travelling by stage in England.  His fellow-passengers were a number of gentlemen who were strangers to him, and who, finding him very amusing, ventured to ask him who he was, and what was his calling.
Mr. Stuart answered with a grave face and a serious tone, that he sometimes dressed gentlemen's and ladies' hair (at that time the high-craped pomatumed hair was all the fashion.)  "You are a hair-dresser, then?"
"What!" said he, "do you take me for a barber?"
"I beg your pardon, sir, but I inferred it from what you said.  If I mistook you, may I take the liberty to ask what you are, then?"
"Why, I sometimes brush a gentleman's coat, or hat, and sometimes adjust a cravat."
"Oh, you are a valet, then, to some nobleman?"
"A valet! Indeed, sir, I am not.  I am not a servant, --to be sure, I make coats and waistcoats for gentlemen."
"Oh, you are a tailor?"
"A tailor! Do I look like a tailor?  I assure you, I never handled a goose, other than a roasted one."
By this time they were all in a roar. "What the devil are you, then?" said one.
"I'll tell you," said Stuart. "Be assured all I have said is literally true.  I dress hair, brush hats and coats, adjust a cravat, and make coats, waistcoats and breeches, and likewise boots and shoes, at your service."
"Oh, a boot and shoe maker after all!"
"Guess again gentlemen; I never handle boots or shoes but for my own feet and lets, yet all I have told you is true."
"We may as well give up guessing!"
After checking his laughter, and pumping up a fresh flow of spirits by a large pinch of snuff, he said to them very gravely; "Now gentlemen, I will not play the fool with you any longer, but will tell you, upon my honor as a gentleman, my bona fide profession.  I get my bread by making faces."  He then screwed his countenance, and twisted the lineaments of his visage in a manner such as a Samuel Foote or Charles Mathews might have envied.  When his companions, after loud peals of laughter, had composed themselves, each took credit to himself for having all the while suspected that the gentleman belonged to the theater, and they all knew he must be a comedian by profession; when, to their utter surprise, he assured them that he was never on the stage, and very rarely saw the inside of a play-house, or any similar place of amusement.  They now all looked at each other in blank astonishment.  Before parting, Stuart said to his companions;

"Gentlemen, you will find that all I have said of my various employments is comprised in these words: I am a portrait painter."

The Grand Tour was De Rigueur: Sophie travels with her son by coach to London 1786. We can be sure that this type of travel is exactly what Gibby experienced during his time in Europe==the travellers marvel at the latest hightech gadget on the English mail coach!

The fancy mail coach (a similar one) that Sophie and her son admired from the window of their Inn, it could transport so many people at one time!

FROM: SOPHIE IN LONDON 1786 (the diary of Sophie v. la Roche in the fall 1786)

first published 1933

The transport arrangements for London are excellent.  From the capital to Harwich is a distance of seventy-four English miles; these are divided into five stages: from here to Mistley, twelve miles; Colchester, ten miles; Witham, fourteen miles; Ingatestone, fourteen miles; Romford, twelve miles; London, twelve miles.  The host of the ‘Three Bumpers’, our present abode, keeps horses, grooms and coaches, of which he has all kinds, letting them out for London, and he is connected with landlords at the above-mentioned localities who, if one arrives with his coach, immediately harness the best horses and put one en route again fast as lightning, accompanied by very well-dressed attendants.  Our coach held five comfortably, was lined with fine cloth, and so well built and lacquered as befitted a state-coach.  Four horses and two postillions brought us early into Ingatestone along the best of roads and through the finest of landscapes.

...We encountered a number of coaches and vehicles, especially goods-vans, whose wheels, by Act of Parliament, are over a hand’s breadth; and so, constantly on the look-out for new and pleasant objects, we arrived in the lovely village of Ingatestone...we had the fun of watching the Colchester mail-coach arrive.  Its name is quite rightly the Colchester Machine—seating six people inside, in front outside behind the coachman four more, and at the back, where the trunks usually go, as many again with a neat enclosure with benches, while eight people were sitting above on deck, their feet dangling overboard, holding fast with their hands to screwed-in brass rings.  This was a new experience for us; we called to each other to come, and my Carl investigated the structure of the machine as soon as it was empty; this took place with all possible convenience to the passengers, as not only those occupying the seats of honour inside were able to descend as in every other good coach, but the rest could climb down too with the aid of small, prettily worked and painted ladders placed immediately alongside, like those found at home in well-appointed libraries.

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.

A lovely portrait comes on the market; Elizabeth Lady Forbes by the esteemed Joshua Reynolds

At Christie's Old Master British Paintings Evening Sale on Dec 4 in London, a portrait of Elizabeth Lady Forbes was sold by a private owner. All information contained here regarding the portrait, the image of the portrait and lot information, is courtesy of Christie's.

Portrait of Elizabeth, Lady Forbes (c. 1750-1802), half-length, in a white dress and a pink mantle, with feathers, ribbons and pearls in her hair

(Information provided by Christie's) This portrait of Lady Forbes has not been publicly exhibited since 1859 and has never previously been offered at auction, having descended in the sitter's family to the present owners.The eldest daughter of Sir James Hay M.D., Bt., of Haystoun, Peeblesshire, Elizabeth married the influential Edinburgh banker, Sir William Forbes, 6th Bt. of Monymusk (1739-1806), in 1770. Forbes was only four when he inherited the baronetcy, and later succeeded to the title and arms of Pitsligo in 1781, but declined the offer by Pitt of an Irish peerage in 1799 and also refused parliamentary seats. Articled to Coutts bank in Edinburgh at the age of fifteen, Forbes forged a career as one of the leading bankers of his age in Scotland, always paying tribute to the Coutts family as the architects of his success. ... A man of considerable wealth, Forbes was also a great philanthropist...

Forbes commissioned Reynolds to paint this arresting portrait of his wife, together with a portrait of himself, in circa 1775-6 (D. Mannings, Sir Joshua Reynolds: A Complete Catalogue of His Paintings, New Haven and London, 2000, I, p. 199, no. 657; II, fig. 1182). Untraced since it was exhibited in 1859, this painting was not included in the catalogue raisonné of the artist's work published by David Mannings in 2000. However, Professor Mannings and Martin Postle have independently confirmed the attribution and dated this portrait to circa 1775-6, the former on the basis of photographs and the latter on first-hand inspection of the painting. 

Gilbert Stuart studied under Benjamin West when he lived in London, but also took courses from Joshua Reynolds.  Reynolds was surely an inspiration to Stuart.

top Joshua Reynolds by Angelica Kauffmann (click for link)

bottom J. Reynolds by Gilbert Stuart

From Lawrence Park (on Stuart's portrait of Reynolds) 

This celebrated English portrait painter was born July 16, 1723, at Plympton, in Devonshire. His father was the Reverand Samuel Reynolds, and his mother, Theophila, daughter of Matthew Potter. Studied under Thomas Hudson in London from 1740 to 1743. In 1749 he went to Italy and lived for two years in Rome. In 1752 he returned, via Paris, to London, and his brilliant career of forty years followed. In 1768 he was one of the founders of the Royal Academy, London, and became its first president. The same year he was knighted.

***

The portrait of Lady Forbes sold for $339,901.00.  According to the Wall St J Dec 8-9 2012 some works by Peter Paul Rubens, Anthony Van Dyck and Tintoretto were 'snubbed.'  I am sorry to say that I was not the one who was able to purchase this lovely portrait, the buyer remains unidentified.  I hope that the portrait is able to be shown to the public in the future, for it is stunning.  It is possible to see Reynolds' influence on Stuart's portrait style.  I wonder how the owner, supposedly a descendant, could part with it.

a wealthy Boston merchant provides a lavish lifestyle for his daughter Hepzibah, aka Madame Swan; a Lovely Portrait by Gilbert Stuart

Hepzibah Clark Swan ca.1806

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

from "Gilbert Stuart“ (Metropolitan Museum of Art) By Carrie Reborra Barratt and Ellen Miles 2004 p296

Hepzibah Clark Swan (1757-1825) turned heads, it seems, at home in Boston and abroad.  She was noticed on the streets of London in the 1790s, “arrayed in all the elegance of the French capital, and attracting every eye by her grace and fancied resemblance to the ill-fated Marie Antoinette, daintily attired, with a self-possession and assurance which her companions vainly endeavored to acquire...” (Martha Amory, The Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copely, pub 1882).  Mrs Swan was indeed conspicuous, in society, in politics, and in the lives of a number of men, including Gilbert Stuart, who had her to thank for plum commissions, countless connections, and even a place to live.  Before the age of twenty, she had inherited vast fortunes from her father, the merchant Barnabas Clark*, and from a close family friend William Dennie, giving her the wherewithal to live in the matter to which she was not merely accustomed but, some would say, destined.  Cosmopolitan and intelligent, a devoted friend and watchful parent, Madame Swan—as she was known—was charismatic, not least because of her money but in good measure because of her charm.

*Barnabas Clark* father of Hepzibah, wealthy merchant, who provided a lavish lifestyle for his daughter----(Merchants ie Samuel Meeker were considered men of honor since their word needed to be trusted.  Samuel Meeker also bought and sold items shipped to and from England.)

Occupation: 1740, Shipmaster; sailing from Boston to London and the Provinces

The Boston Gazette of May 15, 1768, has the following: Imported in the London Packet, Capt. Calef, from London, and to be sold by Barnabas Clarke at his store on Treats Wharf, Boston, near the market at the lowest rates: --Bohen Tea by the chest or less quantity; Pepper by the bag or ditto; Spices of all kinds; Best Durham Mustard by the box; Russia, English and Ravens Duck; Gun powder by the cask. Also Kippen's Snuff by the cask; best French Indigo; Pimento; Ground and Race Ginger; Muscovado Sugar; Philadelphia Flour; Bar Iron;Iron Hoops; Anchors."

From Lawrence Park:

She was Hepzibah Clark, daughter of Barnabas and Hepzibah (Barrett) Clark, and married in 1776 James Swan.

Boston, c 1807. She is shown at half-length, three-quarters left, seated on an Empire sofa upholstered in brilliant crimson velvet, with her hazel eyes directed to the spectator.  Her very dark reddish-brown hair is in ringlets on her forehead and in front of her ears.  Her complexion is ruddy, with high color on her cheeks.  She wears a high-waisted black velvet grown, cut low and square in the neck, with short sleeves, the sleeves and neck of the dress being trimmed with white pointed lace, that on the sleeves being double with the points above and below.  A white lace scarf rests on top of her head, and falling over her right shoulder, lies on her lap, and entirely conceals the right arm and hand.  The left forearm rests upon the arm of the sofa, the hand holding the scarf and the concealed right hand.  A small pin with a garnet shows at the waist.  The background is plain and of a grayish-olive.

MORE ON MADAME SWAN

from Gilbert Stuart: “...Aided by his wife’s fortune, he [husband James Swan] became perhaps the most successful and notorious player in international commerce during the postwar era.  The Swans shared a passion for frivolous and slightly scandalous entertainments, and with their friends ...founded a private social club for card playing and dancing...  In general, the Swans' deepest passion was for things French, which they parlayed into not only a lavish way of life, but also a business..........” p 298

NEXT more on the Swans, Stuart portrait of James Swan...& his fate in prison...

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.