Can you help determine if this was painted by Gilbert Stuart?

I received this question with a photo of a portrait.

My answer; Do you know the history of the painting (how it passed into your hands). Do you know who it is?
These are the #1 questions that one should know.  The majority of Stuart paintings are known and have been catalogued and if not in the catalogues (such as Lawrence Park volumes) & found at a later time, the portrait is added to the list known by the Stuart experts (such as my Meeker painting).  As a Stuart portrait commanded a high sum of money, his sitters were generally from the upper classes; those who could afford his prices and who were often well-known in society (elite society being rather more closed and rarified in these early days).  Stuart was famous during his lifetime, having painted commissions of George Washington, etc.  These portraits would be handed down from generation to generation and treasured by the family, hanging in a place of prominence.
Knowing who the sitter is in a portrait is evidence of the portrait being handed down.  It also can provide a time line of when the portrait was done, also a clue to whether the portrait is a Stuart.
The portrait above is a very good portrait, so I was very interested in the answer to my two questions.

However, I had already determined that this portrait was not a Stuart.  It is a magnificent portrait.  It shows a female half turned to the viewer sitting in an upholstered round backed chair, with no embellishment to her looks (Stuart famously did not beautify female looks often leading to disgruntlement).  The flashes and dashes of color bring out the accents in her clothing, which could be from the time of Stuart or thereabouts.  The background surrounding the sitter is a simple dark blend.  However as Stuart once claimed "a portrait of mine is my signature."  This portrait does not have his signature, neither figuratively nor literally (he did not sign his portraits.)  The flesh tones do not shine with Stuart's deft touch, the overall impression is flatness of color.  The second arm of the sitter in this portrait is not convincing, it has an oddness. Stuart had a formula for pricing.  If the portrait included one arm and hand, the hand usually was holding something that indicated a clue as to the sitter's profession or interest.  This portrait with the extra effort would be more expensive.  Meeker is holding some papers, indicating his profession as a merchant.

The writer's answer confirmed my thoughts for the most part.  "I had just picked it up at an outdoor flea market this morning.  I know nothing about it.  The seller had cleaned out a local estate, but knew nothing of the prior owners."

Thus the identity of this woman, once important enough in the family to have a great portrait of herself done, is now lost to her descendents.  If she had been a Stuart, she would be hanging proudly either in a great residence, or a museum.  But our writer has a fine portrait, a great piece of art.  Does anyone know who she is?

***   

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

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

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

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

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

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



     

Stuart's Pigments and Paint Application

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

In 3 parts:
In spite of {Benjamin} West's statement that "it is of no use to steal Stuart's colors [if you want to paint as he does you must steal his eyes]", American painters were extremely curious to know which pigments Stuart used to achieve his dazzling effects.  As a result, we probably know more about his pigments than about those of any other early American painter.
The most remarkable thing about Stuart's colors is that they are not very remarkable.  Portrait painting can be done (and has been done for centuries) with relatively few pigments.  In fact, all contemporary observers agreed that Stuart used a limited number of pigments and mixtures on his palette.  It was traditional for a painter to place dabs of pure colors around the edge of the palette (usually beginning with white next to the thumbhole and proceeding left to the darker pigments) and also to place some premixed "tints" in the area below this row.  Stuart apparently placed seven or eight pure pigments and nine or ten premixed tints on his palette, which is fewer than many other artists whose palette arrangements have been recorded.  For instance, Thomas Bardwell, in his 1756 book, recommended twelve pure colors and twelve mixed tints for portraits.  In the early nineteenth century, some writers recommended up to sixty-six mixed tints! Jocelyn's description of Stuart's actual wooden palette took a gentle poke at artists who thought that a large number of mixed tints would help them; he said Stuart's "pallet-board" was "smaller than the large pallets affected by some lesser artists."
A limited number of pigments and mixtures makes sense given Stuart's style of painting, and in fact it was his method of applying his paints that was unique, rather than the nature of his pigments.  In the use of his palette and the application of his paints, Stuart was nearly the opposite of Copely, who was said to have spent hours premixing the exact tint with his palette knife for every flesh tone and shadow.  Stuart, by comparison, "condemned the practice of mixing a colour on a knife, and comparing it with whatever was to be imitated.---'Good flesh colouring,' he said, 'partook of all colours, not mixed, so as to be combined in one tint, but shining through each other, like the blood through the natural skin.'  Stuart could not endure Copely's laboured flesh, which he compared to tanned leather."
Suart used, in Jouett's words, "chopping" strokes of distinct colors to give the effect of translucent flesh, thereby avoiding the leathery look that he disliked in Copely's work.  Jouett also reported Stuart's advice to "keep your colours as separate as you can.  No blending, tis destruction to clear and beautiful effect."  Others noticed this as well; John Cogdell, after describing how Stuart combined different colors, added: "Tho this is not done on his pallette but only as they are wanted with the pencil.  Mr. Stewart lays one tint over another." In a detailed account of Stuart's method, Obadiah Dickinson described how a portrait became more distinct as it progressed; "Mr. Steward endeavours in the first sitting to give the appearance of the person at 20 yards distant and in each succeeding sitting to advance its effect nearer until it be completed at 2 yards distance."  But Dickinson noted that even in final touches, Stuart advised; "What you do in the shadows over the glazing must be finished if possible with a single touch or you will spoil the beauty of your work."

Stuart also had opinions about Titian and Rubens that may have influenced his own method of applying paint............ TO BE CONTINUED

Samuel Meeker 1763-1831 a merchant in Philadelphia

Progress on the portrait in the Stuart style, and a question for the experts! & insight into how Stuart painted

Jeanne Grimsby is painting the portrait of my gt grandmother Carrie [Martin] Cory, gt grandaughter of the twin sister of Samuel Meeker, following as much as possible the style of Gilbert Stuart.  As a reminder, Samuel Meeker gifted Phoebe, his twin sister, the Gilbert Stuart portrait of himself to celebrate their 40ieth birthday.  I am sure there was a fancy dance ball at their Schuylkill estate, Fountain Green on this occasion. (click on the link for more information, or also enter into the search box on right.)  I have written Jeanne that I am certain Carrie would have been so thrilled with this project!

Now for the big news, a question for the experts in fact.

Was Gilbert Stuart left-handed?  As far as I know, this has not been discussed as a possibility.

It is amazing that with this project, Jeanne has proposed this insight!

Below is the latest communication and report on the progress of the portrait, with insights into how Stuart {might have} painted~

Jeanne has so kindly offered me the painting, I feel like this is a replay of what happened when the twins turned 40 years old...... but with only a slight variation...

Thank you Jeanne, for such a wonderful, amazing project!

A [dizzying] Summary: Phoebe Meeker marries Job Brookfield (second marriage), daughter Mary Brookfield (b. 1804-after 1856) m. John Ludlum Martin (b.1796-1856), son Thomas Mulford Martin (b.1831-1917) m. Mary C. Ayers & has 3 daughters Carolyn (Carrie)(b.1862-1937), Jane and Emma. Carrie inherited the painting as her two sisters were childless. The GS portrait comes to Ca. Carrie's son Benjamin Hyde Cory is my grandfather, he passed in 1983. His daughter Carolyn Cory Ahrens is still with me, my mother.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~note to me from Jeanne~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Today was another productive painting day. The result of using the portrait of Sally Otis, with her smooth, pale complexion,  as a model for color and shading was that Carrie was looking about 18. So today's task was to age her a bit. Now she looks in her 40s, which I think is correct for her hair and dress style. I resisted the temptation to put some gray in her hair, although the photo seems to show some unruly gray hairs sticking out at her temples. If you would prefer that I add that detail, let me know.

Today was also my first attempt ever at painting a lace jabot, and I think it turned out well for the first time. I think I would have to paint a few more portraits in Stuart's style to really assimilate it all. The jabot is from his John Adams portrait, as is the blue velvet jacket she is now wearing. In reality, she probably would have removed her jacket when sitting for her portrait, but I thought just having a white blouse occupy such a large area of the picture would be a distraction, so she has a jacket on.

Stuart was a very "loose" painter, very modern in his approach. In his Adams portrait. the canvas shows through in places. Because I didn't see that in the beginning, my painting is a bit overworked, especially in the background. I have also used the background from the Adams portrait (the National Gallery has a great downloadable high-resolution image of it). The background is a shaded brown, a great way to use up the brown paint left on the palette at the end of the day. Brown paint dries very quickly, so there is no keeping it for the next day. If you look at the background of the Adams portrait you can see that it is not all one color - it is painted in sort of cloud-like forms. That is done using a long-handled bristle brush, and sort of scrubbing the paint on using your whole arm - which brings me to today's discovery - that Stuart was left-handed. If you look at the background of the Adams portrait you can see curved shapes made by a left-handed painter. I tried to duplicate them, and couldn't because I am right-handed. Similarly there have been other places where I have had difficulty painting certain things the same way because Stuart painted them left-handedly. 

Anyway - I expect to finish the painting in the next couple of weeks.  I'll send you another photo when it is done. After that, it will need to dry thoroughly before it can be varnished. That will be at least another 3 months. If you like it and want me to send it to you, the earliest I could ship it out would be mid to late August. 

Jeanne

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.

More on color, and theory of shadow

Below is an excerpt from a letter written by a young lady whose family members (Qunicy) were painted by Stuart.

~
'I asked if he had any particular mode or rule for mixing his colors: He said, 'No, I mix them as I put sugar in my tea; according to my taste. The whole theory of shadow may be taught by a billiard ball--the simplest object I can think of. Lay it on a table and draw it. You first sketch a circle; you then look at it, and see there is one light, one shadow, and one transparent reflection; on the gradation of these all painting depends. My rule for a portrait is, one-third light, one third dark, and one-third demi-tint.'

More from the same letter;
"The rest of the family were satisfied with the portrait painted in 1806, but I thought there ought to be another, at the age of fifty-two years. My father (Josiah Qunicy) complied with my request, promised to give me the portrait, and in November, 1824, I accompanied him to the house of Mr. Stuart, in Essex street, Boston. ... His canvas was ready on his easel, a bold outline was sketched in chalk, and while conversing rapidly, Mr. Stuart began to put on his colors apparently at random, but of course every touch told. Presently a bright shade of blue appeared in the upper part of the canvas, and Mr. Stuart said to me, 'Your father is an active man, and likes to be in the open air ; he shall have blue sky behind his head. Few artists would attempt to give effect to a portrait with such a light background. It is a bold effort; but I will try it."

~from The Life and Works of Gilbert Stuart by George Mason, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1894, p 243

the image is of Josiah Quincy, age 52, painted 1824-25--The oil on canvas resides at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. It was a gift from Miss Eliza Quincy, from whose letter above the extract is quoted.

~

My gt-gt-gt grandmother was related to the QUINCY family; from Boston she moved to San Francisco after marriage to Henry Francis c. late 1850s.

From my gt grandmother's diary... "A cousin, Henrietta Qunicy often came west to visit us..."

Mixing Colors & The Artist's 'Sanctum Sanctorum'

"The order of Stuart's palette was as follows: Antwerp blue, Kremits-white, vermilion, yellow ochre, lake, Vandyke brown (with him a favorite color), and burnt umber--the latter used sparingly. All these colors were mixed more or less with white. He never glazed his pictures, nor ever attempted in this way to strengthen his shadows, for he thought it a trick. He was always particular to keep his palette in order, and if an artist brought to him one that was not up to a proper standard, he would address to him words clearly expressive of disapprobation. He also took great pains with his pencils, and would never allow any one to touch his easel, or its surroundings; indeed, during the latter years of his life he would never allow any one to go into his painting room when he was not present. If any one touched a pencil, or moved a picture, he would be sure to find it out; so that it became a settled thing in the house that it was best to abstain altogether from going into his sanctum sanctorum, unless invited to do so."

as related by the daughter of the Artist in The Life and Works of Gilbert Stuart by George Mason, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1894, p 39

German Influence on Stuart

This full length portrait of William Grant, called The Skater, was submitted by Stuart to the Royal Academy exhibition in 1782 and created a sensation, drawing much attention to the hitherto relatively unknown painter and significantly boosting his reputation. Stuart had travelled to England in 1775 and while at first jobbing as an organist, he managed to apprentice with Benjamin West (famous on both sides of the Atlantic), and this was his first venture outside of those bounds.
Various influences have been attributed to the coloring and style of this painting, including of course that of West and also, of the English school, Joshua Reynolds.
Others have suggested more obscure theories for his unusual (for Stuart) choice of colors. Evans has ascribed Stuart's interest in a theory of music/color he developed himself as has having a possible influence; writing "Stuart arrived at his own plan for "associating" pure colors and musical chords. ....Stuart's spectrum, based like Newton's on the prism, differed in that Stuart used two values of red to make eight colors, while Newton had seven colors and eight divisions corresponding to notes....." (The Genius of Gilbert Stuart by Dorinda Evans, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1999) Whatever one wants to make of this particular line of thought, what must strongly strike the viewer of the Skater, is the German influence.
Within a few years of this painting, Wilhelm Tischbein would gain world-wide fame with his full length portrait of the German literary poet and philosopher Goethe. The two men not only, in these two portraits, wear somewhat similar clothing (in particular the wide brimmed hat slightly lifting up on one side), but also share similar facial features. A strong wide face, sharp nose and dimple in the chin, the hair almost exactly the same, both can be described as having a robust physique. Goethe was the literary sun of the time, his influence after publishing the work Die Leiden des junger Werthers in 1774 radiating all over the world. Goethe then chose to throw off his chosen profession of law, to settle in the small dukedom of Weimar. Here was a postage-sized cultural jewel, loacated in the deepest countryside, yet the fame of the circle of the Duke Ernst August and his Duchess Anna-Amelia already well-established by the time Goethe arrived in 1776. He was, in all senses, a true celebrity of the time.
Goethe was a lover of nature, of exercise, in addition to his literary pursuits. The freedom of a cold water swim, or a frozen surface inviting vigorous movement, these were both favorite elements of Sturm und Drang. It is well established how Goethe taught the court the pleasures of ice-skating in nature (while composing poetry!) Afterwards he organized skating parties, filling all those participants with his joyous sense of bon vie!
Back to The Skater. It is well known that Stuart loved to talked to his customers, in an effort to draw out the personality to help capture the essense of the sitter. Would it not be likely that Gilbert was struck by the physical resemblance of Grant to Goethe, perhaps helping to strike up a conversation about the new cultural super-star; it is more than plausible that both were fans of Goethe and his novel and poetry, of Goethe's ability to depict emotion in literature, of his love of nature... and in fact, of his passion for ice-skating outdoors...
And perhaps sitter and artist were discussing the commission on a such a cold, grey, wintery day!

'Eis-Lebens-Lied' (Life Song on the Ice) by Goethe 1776

Sorglos ueber die Flaeche weg!