Fascinating, fine & finished; the Stuart portrait of Joseph Brant. Could there be another as of yet undiscovered Stuart portrait of this most famous native North American?

During the American Revolutionary war, American native Indian populations were forced to chose sides between the Americans and the British. Joseph Brant (1743-1807), also known by his Mohawk name of Thayendanegea, became one of the most well known American Native military and political leaders of his time.  Brant chose to side with the British, who promised to protect Indian lands from American settlers who were pushing deeper and deeper into Indian Territory.

Through his intellectual ability, charm and opportunity (his sister was the consort of Sir William Johnson the British Superintendent of Indian Affairs), Brant rose through the British military ranks—becoming a prominent leader of Indian forces allied to the British in a number of  critical Revolutionary war fights.

At the same time through his social abilities and elegant language skills he rose to social prominence in English society. In London to lobby for the protection of Mohawk lands in North America, he was presented at court to George III.  He became an instant celebrity and received reassurances of protection for his peoples and their lands. His portraits were commissioned by the British aristocracy.  Although he seems to have worn “Anglo clothing” in his daily life, he adopted “Indian dress” in his portraits (full Iroquois chieftain garb, in one portrait by George Romney holding a tomahawk).   

From Gilbert Stuart, The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Carrie Rebora Barratt and Ellen G. Miles p 71 on the portrait of Brant commissioned by the Duke of Northumberland:

“Stuart gave Brant a fully modeled visage projecting the strong characterization for which he had become so well known. The limpid eyes, strong nose, resolute mouth, and slightly flaccid jawline describe a man of intelligent determination capable of conciliatory debate. The clothing maintains his nationality and his dignity; over his open collar shirt a cape of small joined silver rings encircles his shoulders, a wide sliver armband is on his right biceps, and four silver bracelets are on his exposed right wrist.  …. The silver ornamentation conveys his high rank; some of it was costume embellishment, but most pieces would have been ceremonial gifts. Tied around his neck he wears the gorget from George III on a blue satin ribbon and hanging below that, a medallion portrait of the king in an imposing brass locket.  He is, by Stuart’s brush, the exemplification of the savage and noble, an Iroquois statesman ornamented by the British.”

Joseph Brant by Gilbert Stuart 1786

   23 1/2 x 24 in     oil on canvas

The Northumberland Estates, Alnwick Castle,

Collection of the Duke of Northumberland

A reader of this blog has sent a photo of a portrait of J. Brant (above), and asks if it might be an original Stuart.  He lists a few reasons why he thinks it might be.

"I am sending you some images of Joseph Brant that I would appreciate you looking at.  I came across your blog while researching this painting.  I do realize that he is the most painted and copied native in the world but I do feel there is a possibilty it could be by Stuart.

• bought at auction in Paris Ontario (next town to Brantford)
• on panel which I've heard he did if it was going to Upper Canada due to conditions
• Label on back from framing co. operated from 1886 to 1891 in Leeds England
• it is 11 1/2 by 14"
• I believe I see blue shades in the skin

****

This would be a copy of a portrait of Brant, 30 x 25, now held at the Fenimore Art Mueseum, Cooperstown, N.Y (thought to be an original).  Could his be a Stuart original copy, the reader wants to explore the possibility.....

My take, with the help of my portraitist consultant.

This portrait is definitely a copy of the Stuart portrait now at the Fenimore Art Museum (considered to be original, in my opinion it does not look to be a Stuart original. This portrait is not currently used by the experts when discussing Stuart's portrait of Brant).  But is it an original copy done by Stuart himself?  He is known to have made copies of his own portraits.
 The fact that it was sold in a town near Brantford is not special, as Brant was able to settle his people in this area after the British loss to the American rebels.  The town was named in honor of this most celebrated warrior/diplomat.  But Stuart was the reigning king of portraits (then and now), and to make a copy of his style & of a portrait done by him would be common.

• the first significant clue when determining whether a portrait is done by Stuart (he did not sign his portraits) is the famed Stuart coloring and rendering of the skin tones.  When comparing the two portraits above, the facial coloring of my reader's portrait is flat and one-dimensional without any demonstration of Stuart's ability to create the brilliant translucence and transparent hues in the skin tones.  The reader's portrait seems to be a predominantly orangish color, but that could be the photography.
• Stuart also uses dashes of this translucence in other more minor features; such as in buttons, lace, or in the case of the Northumberland Stuart portrait above, the "joined silver rings", and in the other ornaments decorating the warrior. The copyist makes a stab at a similar effort without much success.
• in the words of my consultant "the painter copied the picture without understanding the anatomy of the face."  The facial structure is squattish, flat and disproportionate.
• Stuart did make copies of his originals.  The most famous of his numerous copies are those of George Washington; this was a means to make more money on a portrait that was highly in demand at the time.  Although Brant was a well-known figure, he was celebrated only in England and not in America where he was seen as a vicious enemy--thus negating the theory that Stuart would make copies of this portrait in order to increase his income.  The size of this portrait is not in keeping with Stuart practice. The copies that Stuart produced were eerily similar to the original, in style, content, and size.  He sold them for an exorbitant price.

Conclusion: This portrait sent by my reader is a nice/very good.... but amateur copy.

***

Portrait of Joseph Brant 1776 by George Romney, oil on canvas, 50 x 39 in.
The National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa
In his right hand is the tomahawk. The Earl of Warwick commissioned this portrait.

For more posts on BRANT click here
and here ---(at this time I thought that my Stuart portrait was of 
"Major Samuel Meeker" who in fact is known to have skirmished with Brant.)
***

there is an update to the ownership of this portrait:  it was sold in July of 2014

"BY ORDER OF THE 12TH DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND AND THE TRUSTEES OF THE NORTHUMBERLAND ESTATES":

Gilbert Stuart---PORTRAIT OF THE MOHAWK CHIEFTAIN THAYENDANEGEA, KNOWN AS JOSEPH BRANT   (1742–1807)

Estimate1,000,000 — 1,500,000 

LOT SOLD. 4,114,500 GBP 

PROVENANCE 

Commissioned in 1786 by Hugh Percy, 2nd Duke of Northumberland (1742-1817);

By descent to his son, Hugh Percy, 3rd Duke of Northumberland (1785–1847);

By inheritance to his brother, Algernon Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland (1792–1865);

By inheritance to his cousin, George Percy, 5th Duke of Northumberland (1778–1867);

By descent to his son, Algernon George Percy, 6th Duke of Northumberland (1810–1899);

By descent to his son, Henry George Percy, 7th Duke of Northumberland (1846–1918);

By descent to his son Alan Ian Percy, 8th Duke of Northumberland (1880–1930), who married Helen Gordon-Lennox (1886–1965), daughter of Charles Gordon-Lennox, 7th Duke of Richmond;

By descent to their second son, Hugh Algernon Percy (1914–1988), who succeeded his brother, the 9th Duke, as 10th Duke of Northumberland in 1940, after he was killed in action whilst serving with the Grenadier Guards during the retreat to Dunkirk;

By descent to his son, Henry Alan Walter Richard Percy, 11th Duke of Northumberland (1953–1995);

By inheritance to his brother, Ralph George Algernon Percy, 12th and present Duke of Northumberland (b. 1956), the current owner.

Is this portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart??

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

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

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





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

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

Carolyn (Carrie) Ayers Martin, direct descendant of Samuel Meeker's twin sister Phoebe Meeker

my great grandmother Carrie Marin m. Lewis L. Cory (b. San Jose, Ca settled in Fresno, Ca)

born 23 Feb 1862 Rahway, NJ
d.16 Mar 1937 Fresno, Ca

Carrie was the Jersey maiden who brought the portrait of Samuel Meeker to California.  (Carrie had two sisters with no children, so she inherited the portrait.)  Her father was Thomas Mulford Martin, his mother was Mary Brookfield who was the daughter of Phoebe Meeker.
Phoebe Meeker was the twin sister of Samuel Meeker, sitter in the portrait.  Through logic and events, I have deduced that Samuel gifted his portrait by Stuart to his twin sister on their 40ieth birthday.  Most likely at a celebration/ball at their country estate on the Schuylkill, Fountain Green.

NOTE THE SIMILARITY of Carrie's lips to the shape of Samuel's mouth.  The shape of the face, the cheekbones, the chin...  Astonishingly distinctive!  This not only offers validation of the family provenance, but also of Stuart's amazing ability to nail the image of the sitter.

*

*

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.’ " ...

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.

an AHA moment. (no sunscreen, etc)

Yesterday was nothing special or out of the ordinary, as usual watching the news on a Fri. eve (love the Shields-Brooks match up on the PBS Nightly report) when my brother Paul's girlfriend gave me a call. She wanted to drop by to show me some photoportraits of herself she had done in celebration of her 50ieth. Very nice! A lady after my heart for besides being fit (yet still brought over MaryAnn's ice cream), we ended up talking about loving things of the past and soon enough were talking about Meeker who hangs on my livingroom wall. She says, "There are two different colors in the face." and I am thinking of my response which would have been something along the lines of well yes Stuart was known for his ability to achieve translucence of the skin...............when she adds "Like, he was wearing a hat!".

I had never thought of it before, as obvious a point as it is!!! Yes, so many of Stuart's male sitters have the ruddy cheeks and whitish forehead; exactly, men were outside so much of the time, on horseback when going from one place to another thereby their hat was most likely a daily necessity (and no sun screen!), the women were inside, or when outside with hats/parasols so their faces are uniformly pale (or with the delicate blush).... and Stuart depicted the exact reality as was his norm....

**

Stuart led off in one of his merriest veins, and the time passed pleasantly in jocose and amusing talk (with Horace Binney)

Horace, a very young and up-coming lawyer was painted by Stuart in 1800, and one day some 50 years later, as an older man, he talked to his nephew about the portrait. This nephew wrote down these reminisces with his uncle in a diary, which was then later shared with George Mason, biographer of Stuart “The Life and Works of Gilbert Stuart” 1894 ... and I share them in their entirety with you here. Enjoy the insight into our artist: his particular mode of painting, issues of concern, and ... how happy he was to not be a Tailor!

Binney, Horace

From the diary of the late Horace Binney Wallace, a nephew of Mr. Binney, I am permitted to make the following extract:

“Wednesday, June 31st, 1852. I called today upon Mr. Binney, before leaving town for the summer. The conversation turned upon Stuart’s portrait of him, which hangs in our back parlor. He said that it was painted in the autumn of 1800, when he was not twenty-one years old. Some one had brought out from Canton some Chinese copies of Stuart’s Washington, and Stuart prosecuted an injunction in the Circuit Court of the United States against the sale of them. ‘I was sedulous,’ said Mr. Binney, ‘in my attendance on the courts, and here I became acquainted with Stuart. He came frequently to my office,’ continued Mr. Binney, ‘which was in Front street. I was always entertained by his conversation. I endeavored to enter into his peculiar vein, and show him that I relished his wit and character. So he took snuff, jested, punned and satirized to the full freedom of his bent.’ “Binney’ he said to one of my friends, ‘has the length of my foot better than any one I know of,’ meaning, I suppose, that I knew how to humor him, and give him play.
“ ‘When your mother requested me to give her the portrait that is in your house, I made an appointment with Stuart, and called to give my first sitting. He had his panel ready (for the picture is painted on a board), and I said: ‘Now, how do you wish me to sit? Must I be grave? Must I look at you?’ ‘No,’ said Stuart; ‘sit just as you like, look whichever way you choose; talk, laugh, move about, walk around the room, if you please.’ So, without more thought of the picutre on my part, Stuart led off in one of his merriest veins, and the time passed pleasantly in jocose and amusing talk. At the end of an hour I rose to go, and, looking at the portrait, I saw that the head was as perfectly done as it is at this moment, with the exception of the eyes, which were blank, I gave one more sitting of an hour, and in the course of it Stuart said: ‘Now, look at me one moment,’ I did so. Stuart put in the eyes by a couple of touches of the pencil, and the head was perfect. I gave no more sittings.
“ ‘When the picture was sent home,’ continued Mr. Binney, ‘it was much admired; but Mr. T***** M***** observed that the painter had put the buttons of the coat on the wrong side. Sometime after this, Stuart sent for the picture, to do some little matter of finish which had been left, and, to put an end to a foolish cavil, I determined to tell him of M.’s criticism; but how to do it without offending him was the question. The conversation took a turn upon the excessive attention which some minds pay to the minutie of costume, etc. This gave the opportunity desired. ‘By the way, said I, ‘do you know that somebody has remarked that you have put the buttons on the wrong side of that coat?’ ‘Have I?’ said Stuart. ‘Well, thank God, I am no tailor.’ He immediately took his pencil and with a stroke drew the lapelle to the collar of the coat, which is seen there at present. ‘Now,’ said Stuart, ‘it is a double-breasted coat, and all is right, only the buttons on the other side not being seen.’ ‘Ha!’ said I, ‘you are the prince of tailors, worthy to be master of the merchant tailors’ guild.’
“ ‘Stuart,’ said Mr. Binney ‘had all forms in his mind, and he painted hands, and other details, from an image in his thoughts, not requiring an original model before him. There was no sitting for that big law-book that, in the picutre, I am holding. The coat was entirely Stuart’s device. I never wore one of that color [a near approach to a claret color]. He thought it would suit the complexion.’
“ ‘On the day when I was sitting to him the second time,’ said Mr. Binney, ‘I said to Stuart, ‘What do you consider the most characteristic feature of the face? You have already shown me that the eyes are not; and we know from sculpture, in which the eyes are wanting, the same thing.’ Stuart just pressed the end of his pencil against the tip of his nose, distorting it oddly. ‘Ah, I see, I see,’ cried Mr. Binney.
“Mr. Binney agreed with me in thinking that the Washington was one of Stuart’s least inspired heads. Stuart used to call that head, you know, his ‘hundred-dollar bill.’ One day, when he had his family at Germantown, and his painting room in the city, learning from Mrs. Stuart that the domestic treasure was empty, he set off to come to town, to his bank, for one hundred dollars. At a tavern, half-way, got out of the stage to get something to drink, and in searching his pocket-book found a fifty-dollar note, which he had forgotten that he had. When the coachman called upon him to get into the coach again, he replied, ‘You may go on; I mean to wait for the return coach.’
“ ‘Stuart,’ Mr. Binney caid, ‘thought highly of his portrait of John Adams. Showing it one day to Mr. Binney, ‘Look at him,’ said he. ‘It is very like him, is it not? Do you know what he is going to do? He is just going to sneeze.’
“ ‘Stuart had an anecdote illustrative of physiognomy—its truth or falsehood. There was a person in Newport celebrated for his powers of calculation, but in other respects almost an idiot. One day, Stuart, being in the British Museum, came upon a bust, and immediately exclaimed to his companion, who was also a Rhode Island man: ‘Why, here is a head of Calculating Jemmy.’ He called the curator and said: ‘I see you have the head of Calculating Jemmy here.’ “Calculating Jemmy!’ said the curator; ‘that is the head of Sir Isaac Newton.’ "

The portrait of Mr. Binney above described, Mr. John William Wallace gave back to his uncle in his old age. It is a picture of a youth of twenty years, having a high complexion, bright chestnut-colored hair and splendid blue eyes. Hon. Horace Binney died in 1875, aged 96 years.

8

*

Professional Career:
Founding member of the Hasty Pudding Club
Founding member of the Law Library Company of the City of Philadelphia;Director, 1805-1819; 1821-1827
Assembly of Pennsylvania, member, 1806-1807
1st U.S. Bank, Director, 1808
City of Philadelphia, Common Council, president, 1810-1812
City of Philadelphia, Select Council, member 1816-1819
Founded the Apprentices' Library 1821
Associated Members of the Bar of Philadelphia, Vice Chancellor, 1821
Law Association of Philadelphia, Vice Chancellor, 1827-1836; Chancellor, 1852-54
Law Academy, President,1832 Member of the U.S. Congress 1833-1835

*

*

Horace Binney by Gilbert Stuart

National Gallery of Art DC

from Lawrence Park:

Honorable Horace Binney

1780-1875 A son of Dr. Barnabas and Mary (Woodrow) Binney of Philadelphia. He was graduated from Harvard College in 1797, admitted to the Philadelphia bar in 1800 and became one of the most prominent lawyers of the country. He obtained his LL.D. Harvard, in 1827. He was a member of the American Philosophical Society; of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and a Fellow of the American Academy.

John Adams by Stuart

National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C

about to sneeze?☺

♥

David, descendant of Samuel Miles

David McCann with the Gilbert Stuart portrait of Samuel Miles that was pulled out of storage at the Corcoran Gallery of Art. Not all GS works are constantly on display. The photo below shows David involved in his mission to study the social history of his ancestors Samuel and wife Catherine Wister Miles.

~

Colonel Samuel Miles; Gilbert Stuart c 1800

in the collection of the Corcoran Gallery of Art

The genius of Gilbert Stuart, acknowledged during his lifetime & today as well, was his ability to nail the likeness of the sitter onto the canvas.

From Lawrence Park:

Born in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. He served in the French and Indian wars and in 1761 settled in Philadelphia as a wine merchant, becoming also a large landholder in Chester County, where he founded the town of Milesburg. He was a member of the Assembly in 1772-1776, and was appointed brigadier-general of the Pennsylvania forces in 1776 after having been taken prisoner at the battle of Long Island in the previous August. He was exchanged in 1778 and became successively Judge of the High Court of Errors and Appeals, member of the city council of Philadelphia, alderman and mayor. His autobiography, written in 1802, was published in 1873 in the "American Historical Record," Philadelphia.

Philadelphia, c. 1800. Panel, 29x 23 1/2 inches. This bust portrait shows him turned half-way to the right, with his grayish-blue eyes directed at the spectator. His thin locks, sparse on top, but long at the back of his head, are grayish-white. He wears a black coat, white neckcloth and lace jabot. The order of the Society of the Cincinnati is suspended from his left coat lapel. The background is in tones of olive, shading to almost black towards the left. At the right is a draped curtain of brownish-plum.

Presented in 1909 by Miss Elizabeth F. McKean to the Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washinton, D.C.
**************************
~
David McCann notes about Mile's captivity by the British; "In correspondence from General William Howe, Colonel Miles was granted a two-week parole provided, under the strictest of regulations, he did nothing to further the patriot cause. ...in December, 1777 he [Miles] made good use of [this] time as he was reunited with Catherine [see entry before this one, Catherine Miles] at their Spring Mill home. John Wister Miles was born on September 9, 1778. The John Miles branch of the family would lead to me; hence John’s birth takes on greater significance. His Majesty’s Government of King George III is to be thanked for its benevolence. "

~