THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY QUARTERLY BULLETIN VOL. XVIII JULY, 1934 No. 2

CAPTAIN JOHANNES AND MRS. ELIZABETH (STAATS) SCHUYLER. (Bequeathed to the Society by Major Philip Schuyler, 1915).

NEW YORK: 170 CENTRAL PARK WEST PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY AND ISSUED TO MEMBERS THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, 170 CENTRAL PARK WEST (Erected by the Society 1908) Wings to be erected on the 76th and 77th -Street corners

OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY

For Three Years, ending January 8, 1935

PRESIDENT FOREIGN CORRESPONDING SECRETARY JOHN ABEEL WEEKES ARCHER MILTON HUNTINGTON

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT DOMESTIC CORRESPONDING SECRETARY ROBERT E. DOWLING ERSKINE HEWITT

SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT RECORDING SECRETARY ARTHUR H. MASTEN B. W. B. BROWN

THIRD VICE-PRESIDENT TREASURER R. HORACE GALLATIN GEORGE A. ZABRISKIE

FOURTH VICE-PRESIDENT LIBRARIAN WILLIAM D. MURPHY ALEXANDER J. WALL PORTRAIT OF CAPTAIN AND MRS. JOHANNES SCHUYLER

A HITHERTO UNRECOGNIZED WORK OF JOHN SMIBERT By William Sawitzky

The important collection of over four hundred American por­ traits in the New-York Historical Society includes about thirty that were painted at the end of the seventeenth or during the first half of the eighteenth centuries. When studied for style, tech­ nique, and mannerisms, these likenesses can easily be arranged into clearly defined groups of common artistic origin, but in trying to identify the individual artists we have so far not advanced beyond suggestions and a few tentative attributions. These portraits—and many others of the same period, most of them still in the possession of descendants—represent members of the well-known families, usually of Dutch origin, who during the seventeenth century settled on Manhattan Island and along the banks of the Hudson River as far north as the Mohawk Valley. In the majority of cases their identity has been preserved by family tradition, though not always beyond doubt. Tradition, on the other hand, has been considerably less interested in the artists who produced these portraits. While it is known, for instance, that four members of the Duyckinck family, belonging to three genera­ tions, were "glass makers, limners and painters," we have not been able to link definitely any of these groups of portraits to either Evert Duyckinck, ist (1621-1702), Gerret Duyckinck (1660- 1710), Evert Duyckinck, 3rd (1677-1727), or Gerardus Duyc­ kinck (1695-1742). Equally little has been recorded about John Watson (1685-1768) who, according to Dunlap, came from Scot­ land in 1715, settled in Perth Amboy, then capital of New Jersey, and reputedly built up a fortune as a prolific portrait painter and shrewd lender of money.1 But the same author, writing just a century ago, adds that none of the pictures painted by Watson "can now be found." If the Scotchman really was a successful

1 History of the Rise and Progress of the Arts of Design in the United States, by William Dunlap (New York, 1834), I, 18-21. 19 20 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY portraitist, it is difficult to believe that his whole artistic output should have disappeared, with the exception of the several rela­ tively unimportant miniatures in india ink or pencil, generally thought to be by him. It seems more reasonable to assume that at least a small number of Watson's oil portraits are still extant, but have remained unidentified as his work. Almost as much of an enigma is Pieter Vanderlyn, who is reported to have painted like­ nesses during the seventeen hundred and twenties between Kings­ ton and Schenectady. About fifty portraits have of late been at­ tributed to him, but they vary so greatly not only in quality but in basic approach, that the problem of their authorship can not be regarded as having been solved to our entire satisfaction. Other possibilities are Jacob Gerritsen Strycker (died 1687), to whom four portraits have been attributed on the strength of tradition and circumstantial evidence, and one Henri Couturier (d. 1684), whose supposed authorship of two technically very dissimilar por­ traits in a private collection is based on interlaced initials, and appears too conjectural to be accepted without additional and more convincing evidence. If we mention Doornick, said to have been an early eighteenth century portrait painter in New York, but about whom nothing beyond his name seems to be known, our present-day list of artists of the period and territory under dis­ cussion is exhausted. That nearly all these several hundred portraits of members of Colonial families, domiciled between New York and Albany, were painted by local artists is a fact which hardly needs to be explained and substantiated. At the same time, it should not be overlooked that even during those times of difficult and slow transportation people travelled more than we perhaps imagine, and that this applies to artists as well as to their clients. The already-mentioned John Watson, while making his home in Perth Amboy, seems to have visited Eastern Pennsylvania, and possibly Delaware and Maryland. Of Robert Feke (ca. 1705-ca. 1750) we know that while he was born at Oyster Bay, Long Island, and later on lived in Newport, Rhode Island, about half of the number of portraits which can be accepted as his work, were painted in Boston and Philadelphia. The reputation of some of our early artists un­ doubtedly spread beyond the immediate circle of their activities QUARTERLYBULLETIN 21 and resulted in invitations to other cities with prospects for com­ missions. Again, as the opportunities offered by rather small towns and a sparsely settled country were naturally very limited, some of the artists who made their livelihood mainly by painting likenesses, must have found it necessary to travel in search of work. What among portrait painters of later generations became a com­ mon practice, already existed during those earlier times, if on a much smaller scale. There is also indisputable evidence that occa­ sionally some persons had their portraits painted not by the nearest or most popular local artist, but while sojourning in another city, possibly either because they preferred the work of some particular artist, or at the suggestion of relatives or friends with whom they were visiting. One of the pictures which has started this train of thoughts and has led to these observations is the large double portrait of Captain Johannes Schuyler (1668-1747) and Mrs. Schuyler, born Eliza­ beth Staats (d. 1737), which since November, 1915, has been in the collection of the New-York Historical Society, and which is reproduced on the cover of this Bulletin. It is not only one of the earliest American pictures owned by the Society, but it is also such a colorful and effective painting that it would attract attention in almost any group of portraits. In spirit and technique it stands apart from all the other portraits of the same period in these galleries, and the quite obvious fact that it can not be linked to any of the New York or "Hudson River School" portraits seems to have deterred our scholars from giving it the study it deserves, in­ stead of exciting their interest all the more. I am prompted to make this, remark because, with a single exception, none of our writers on early American portraiture has ever advanced so much as a tentative opinion regarding its authorship, and because only two suggestions have been made as to its probable date. The picture was, to my knowledge, reproduced for the first time in the Albany Chronkles,2 with the information that it was "owned in 1906 by Gen. Philip Schuyler of Irvington, N. Y., a great-great-great-grandson, who was killed in a railroad wreck in Virginia, Nov 29, 1906." According to the compiler of the chron­ icles, the portrait of Captain Schuyler is "authenticated by showing 2Albany Chronicles, compiled by Cuyler Reynolds (Albany, 1906), No. 10. 22 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY the portrait of his wife (Elizabeth Staats Wendell) as mentioned in his will." The next reference is by Charles K. Bolton,3 and it is limited to the suggestion that the painting "was done probably about 1710 or 1715," in other words that it shows Captain Schuyler as between forty-two and forty-seven years of age. In a footnote Mr. Bolton adds: "The canvas was long ago cut from top to bottom, eliminating a table in the center of the picture, to make the canvas smaller." Two years later the picture was commented upon by John Hill Morgan as follows: 4 "It is stated that this portrait was cut down to eliminate a table and a window with distant landscape which was between Captain Schuyler and his wife. The canvas shows that it has been cut in the center from right to left and from top to bottom, which has resulted in the tilting of Captain Schuyler up­ wards toward the left. The Will of Johannes Schuyler dated February 25, 1742, bequeathed a picture of himself and wife in one frame to his daughter Margarita, wife of Colonel Philip Schuyler, but alas! the name of the artist is omitted. This picture could not be by the hand of the Albany artist who painted the portraits of two of Captain Schuyler's children Philip (No. 135) and Catalina (No. 136) in the Society's collection as it was done by an artist much more highly trained, but the same artist probably painted the portraits of the same Philip (No. 490) and Johannes (No. 491). It compares favorably with the best work done in the Colonies at this time and I suggest the strong probability that it is by Evert Duyckinck 3rd." The date of the picture is suggested by Mr. Morgan as 1723, when Captain Schuyler was fifty-five years of age. A short article dealing with all the sixteen Schuyler portraits owned by the Society appeared in the Quarterly Bulletin, October, 1925, and the double portrait is reproduced on p. 77, with the tentative attribution to Evert Duyckinck, 3d. In April, 1925, Mr. Montgomery Schuyler read an address on "The Schuyler Family" before the New York Branch of The Order of Colonial Lords of Manors in America, and this paper was pub­ lished in pamphlet form in 1926. It reproduces the painting in

3 Portraits of the Founders, by Charles K. Bolton (Boston, 1919), II, 596a. 4 Early American Painters, by John Hill Morgan (New York, 1931), 32-34. QUARTERLYBULLETIN 23 two parts, Captain Schuyler on p. 22 and Mrs. Schuyler on p. 28, without, however, referring to the tentative attribution or the sug­ gested dates. The last reference which I have noticed is by the Rev. Henry Wilder Foote 5 who mentions the reproduction in Mr. Morgan's book, but gives the date of the picture as "about 1710-15," thus evidently agreeing with Mr. Bolton. While I share Mr. Morgan's opinion that the painting under discussion "compares favorably with the best work done in the Colonies at this time," I can not accept his suggestion that "the same artist" probably painted the portraits of the two sons of Captain and Mrs. Schuyler, Philip and Johannes. These bust por­ traits, though not in good condition, are well enough preserved to disclose a different and less fluent technique, and there are rea­ sons for thinking that their tentative attribution to Pieter Vander­ lyn, made by Charles X. Harris, may eventually prove to be correct.6 Mr. Morgan's final suggestion as to the "strong proba­ bility" of the double portrait being a work of Evert Duyckinck, 3d, I understand all the less since he tentatively attributes to this artist also the portraits of Rip Van Dam and Sarah Vander- spiegle Van Dam, owned by the Society, as well as the six earliest canvases in the extraordinary collection of ancestral portraits which has been preserved in the Beekman family. While it is well within the .range of possibilities that further research may succeed in establishing Evert Duyckinck, 3d, as the painter of the Van Dam and Beekman portraits, there is, in my opinion, stylistically and technically no connection whatsoever between them and the picture of Captain and Mrs. Schuyler. An examination and study of the double portrait, made possible through the interest and courtesy of the Librarian of the Society, has convinced me that it is a fine example of the work of John Smibert. As a matter of fact it is, to my mind, so thoroughly characteristic of the Scotch-American artist, not only in its mental approach but in composition, draughtsmanship, color, brushwork, and small mannerisms, that the question arises why it should have 5 Robert Feke, Colonial Portrait Painter, by Henry Wilder Foote (Harvard Uni­ versity Press, 1930), 41, note 2. 6 "Pieter Vanderlyn, Portrait Painter from 1719 to 1732," by Charles X. Harris, Neio York Historical Society Quarterly Bulletin, October, 1921, p. 14. H K Iw w I o p

o I o > o o w H •<

DEAN BERKELEY WITH FAMILY AND ASSOCIATES. Painted in 1729 by John Smibert. Courtesy of the Gallery of Fine Arts, Yale University. QUARTERLYBULLETIN 25 remained unrecognized all these years. The most plausible ex­ planation I can find is that a clear impression and exact estimate of John Smibert's work is still somewhat obscured and hampered by the fact that a considerable number df decidedly inferior por­ traits, unmistakably by Nathaniel Emmons (1704-1740), Joseph Badger (1708-1765), John Greenwood (1727-1792), Nathaniel Smibert (1734-1756), and some of the other minor or unidentified painters of New England, have been charged to the elder Smibert even by some of the latest writers on the subject, while at the same time several of his best portraits have been credited to other artists, or else have remained unattributed to anyone. Born in Edinburgh on April 4, 1688, John Smibert came to America as a member of Dean Berkeley's party, landing at New­ port, Rhode Island, in January, 1729. The story of Berkeley's Utopian plan for the erection of "a universal college of science and arts for the instruction of heathen children in Christian duties and civil knowledge" is too well known to require a repetition on this occasion. As to Smibert, he had met Berkeley in Italy, and accepted an invitation to become professor of drawing, painting and architecture in the center of learning that was to be created in the New World. However, the funds promised to Berkeley before he sailed from England never arrived, and Smibert, after doing some work in Newport and Narragansett (including the large group of Dean Berkeley's family and associates, now in the Gallery of Fine Arts at Yale University) went to Boston in Decem­ ber, 1729. There he met with instant success and was enabled to marry seven months later, on July 30, 1730. His wife was Mary Williams, daughter of Dr. Nathaniel Williams, physician by train­ ing, and for some thirty years headmaster of the Latin School in Boston. Regarding their offspring we read in Walpole that the artist at his death "left a widow with two children." 7 This is repeated by Dunlap who writes that Smibert "lived in Boston in high estimation until the year 1751, leaving two children," and adds that one of the children was a son named Nathaniel.8 Whit- more gives the names of four children, born between 1731 and

7 Anecdotes of Painting in England, compiled from the manuscript notes of George Vertue by Horace Walpole. Second edition of Vol. IV (London, 1782), 62. 8 Dunlap, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 31. • 26 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY

1734: Alison, William, John, and 'Nathaniel.9 This number is again reduced to two by Fielding, who, in addition, seems to be in a quandary about Nathaniel Smibert, mentioning him first as a son and then listing him separately as a brother of John Smibert.10 Finally, it is stated by Bayley that the Smiberts had children "in rapid succession: seven sons and two daughters." J1 The artist himself writes, in a letter dated Boston, July 1, 1743, and sup­ posedly addressed to Arthur Pond of London: "I am happy in 4 clever Boys." 12 Smibert's nephew and business associate, John Moffatt, in a letter dated Boston, December 28, 1752, informs the same Arthur Pond that Smibert ". . . has left a Widow and three sons." 13 The statements of Vertue-Walpole and Dunlap can be discarded, as they are contradicted by the obviously more reliable remark in John Moffatt's letter. As to the other sum­ maries, seemingly at variance, the only way to reconcile them is to assume that the Smibert children may have totaled nine, but that at the time of the artist's death, this number had been reduced to three by the then prevalent infant mortality. Of Nathaniel Smibert we know a little more than about his brothers and sisters, although he, too, died young. He showed talent as a painter and among the few known productions of his brush are portraits of Ezra Stiles (1727-1795), now in the Gallery of Fine Arts at Yale University, and of the Boston school master and loyalist John Lovell (1710-1778), now owned by Harvard University. As some of John Smibert's canvases are fully signed and dated, while the authenticity of others is established through mezzotint engravings by his friend and associate Peter Pelham (1684-1751), the stepfather of John Singleton Copley, there are enough key pictures in existence to inform us about the spirit and technical characteristics of his work. On the basis of this knowledge about seventy American portraits of the period 1729-1749 can with cer­ tainty be attributed to him.

9 "The Early Painters and Engravers of New England," by William H. Whit- more, in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1866), IX, 208. 10 Dictionary of American Painters, Sculptors and Engravers, by Mantle Fielding (Philadelphia, 1926), 335. 11 Five Colonial Artists of New England, by Frank W. Bayley (Boston, 1929), 338. 12 Smibert-Moffatt Letters, in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1015, Vol. 49, 29. 13 Ibid., 1915, Vol. 49, 36. QUARTERLYBULLETIN 27

That Smibert was an artist of any originality, imagination, or scope, nobody has ever claimed, or is at all likely to claim. His artistic formula is most obviously derived from that of Sir Godfrey Kneller (i646-1723), as is evident to anyone familiar with the latter's Selfportrait, Sir Christopher Wren, and another dozen or so portraits in the National Portrait Gallery, London. But the limitations and weaknesses of Smibert's work are, to a large extent, explained by the fundamental traits of the whole "after Van Dyck" school of portrait painting in England: its adherence to strictly con­ ventional compositions, stock poses and formal gestures, and its capitulation to pseudo-romanticism and a superficial elegance. It goes without saying that individual character and age are not par­ ticularly well brought out in these portraits. Realizing the sus­ ceptibility of human beings to flattery, Smibert managed to catch in his portraits a likeness in which, with some notable exceptions, the addition of years played little or no part. To men of fifty or more he usually gave the same smoothness of contour and rosiness of complexion as to youths in their twenties, and his ladies of un­ certain age he allowed to retain this agreeable uncertainty through succeeding generations, by an impartial endowment of round faces, large doll-like eyes, ungreyed hair, and full throats. This tendency became more marked in his later pictures, after his popularity and his formula had become definitely established. In his draughts­ manship and brushwork Smibert was suave and soft, as the reader will notice in the accompanying reproductions, and for this reason I must again disagree with Mr. Morgan who characterizes his work as "hard and stilted." 14 Regardless of all his shortcomings Smibert occupies a definite place in the history of American por­ traiture, thus summed up by Gulian C. Verplanck: "Smibert was not an artist of the first rank, for the arts were then at a very low ebb in England; but the best portraits which we have of the eminent magistrates and divines of New England and New York, who lived between 1725 and 1751, are from his pencil."15 To this can be added that the Scotchman, if nothing else, was at least a fairly well trained and technically competent painter, and so of necessity must have played a part in the development of

14 Morgan, op. cit., 14. 15 Historical Discourse, by Gulian C. Verplanck (New York, 1833), 102. 28 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Feke and Copley, the most talented of our native-born Colonial artists. Johannes Schuyler was born April 5, 1668, at Rensselaerswyck, and died July 25, 1747, in Albany. He was the youngest son among ten children of Philip Pieter sen Schuyler (ca. 162 8-1683), founder of the family in America, and his wife Margarita Van Slichtenhorst (1628-1710). Holding a captain's commission in 1690, he led a successful military raid into Canada, and in 1703 became mayor of Albany. It is said that in the influence which Johannes Schuyler and his older brother Colonel Peter Schuyler, the well-known "Quidor," exercized over the Indians, they were second only to Sir William Johnson. On April 25, 1695, he married Elizabeth Staats (also spelled Staets and Staes), daughter of Major Abraham and Katrina (Jorhemse) Staats of Rens­ selaerswyck, and sister of Dr. Samuel Staats, a prominent member of the Leislerian party. Elizabeth Staats had been married before, to Johannes Wendell (1649-1691), and at the time of her second marriage was a widow with nine children between four and thirteen years of age. Johannes Wendell, a son of Evert Jansen Wendell, was born in New Amsterdam but settled in Albany, became a general trader and grew to be a very wealthy and prominent man. His first wife, Maritie Jillisse, bore him two daughters: Elsie and Maritie. After her death he married Elizabeth Staats, and as their first child was born in 1678, and the mother at that time hardly could have been younger than sixteen years, it follows that she herself was born not later than 1662. This is of interest, be­ cause the exact date of her birth seems nowhere recorded, and be­ cause it proves that she was at least six years older than her second husband. The children of Elizabeth Staats by Johannes Wendell were: Abraham, born 1678; Susanna; Catalyntje; Elizabeth; Johannes, born 1684; Ephraim, born 1685; Isaac, born 1687; Sarah, born 1688; and Jacob, born 1691. Of the last mentioned we will have occasion to speak again. By her second husband, Johannes Schuy­ ler, she had four children: Philip (1695-1745), Johannes (1697- 1741), Margarita (1701-1782), and Catalyntje or Catalina (1704/05-1758). The second son, Johannes, married his cousin Cornelia Van Cortlandt, and the oldest of their five children was QUARTERLYBULLETIN 29

General Philip Schuyler (1733-1804) of Revolutionary War repu­ tation. Margarita married, in 1719, her cousin Philip Schuyler (1696-1758), and she is familiar to us as the "American Lady" whose "Memoirs" were written by Mrs., Anne Grant of Laggan. As Captain Johannes Schuyler outlived his two sons, and Mar­ garita seems to have been his favorite child, it was to her that he bequeathed the portrait of himself and wife "in one frame" which is the occasion for this article. Both figures in the double portrait are shown at about three- quarter length. Captain Schuyler has brown eyes, greyish-brown and heavy eyebrows, and a healthy complexion. His powdered periwig is of the form known as bobwig, the lower ends being tied into knots or bobs. His coat of a medium brown velvet is the collarless coat of the period, which reaches below the knees, has a full skirt, broad and very deep cuffs buttoned at the elbows, large pocket flaps, and buttons all down the front. He also wears a white shirt and a straight Steinkirk cravat with fringed ends. The full sleeves of his shirt are gathered to a band at the wrists from which the ruffles fall over his hands. Under his left arm he holds a black cocked hat, and at his left hip the silver hilt of his sword is visible. Mrs. Schuyler has, like her husband, brown eyes and greyish- brown eyebrows, and her hair, a little of which can be seen under her head-dress, is also brown. She is dressed in a black gown, with a white underdress showing in ruffles at the throat and below the elbows. Her head-dress consists of what is known as a widow's cap, although it seems to have been worn not only in mourning for a husband. It was made of two layers of white material, appar­ ently a fine linen, gathered into a double ruche above the forehead, with the ends either hanging down over the bosom, or slung into a loose knot at the throat. This white cap was partly covered by a black hood, the lower ends of which were either thrown back over the shoulders, or tied in front. Caps and Tioods of exactly the same type as those worn by Mrs. Schuyler can be seen in a bust- portrait of Mrs. Daniel Oliver, born Elizabeth Belcher (d. 1735), attributed to Smibert, and owned by William Hutchinson Pynchon Oliver, Esq., of Morristown, N. J.; in the portrait of Mrs. Gerard Beekman, born Magdalen Abeel (1661-1730), by an unidentified 30 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY artist;16 in William Hogarth's famous three-quarter length por­ trait of his widowed mother, painted in 1735,17 and in several other portraits of the period. As Mrs. Schuyler's first husband had died about forty years before this picture was painted, she hardly is in mourning for him, but more likely for some other mem­ ber of her family.18 Her right hand rests on a white handker­ chief in her lap, while the left, with a plain ring on the middle finger, lies across an open book which has a gilt fore-edge. All the draperies, tablecovers, upholstery and a tasseled cushion in the picture appear to be of velvet and are of a uniform color, a purplish-brownish red. The middle of the background shows a window and casement, painted in shades of brown. The canvas measures seventy-one by fifty-four inches and was rebacked and mounted on a new stretcher before the picture came into possession of the Society. The already mentioned vertical and horizontal cuts go almost, though not exactly, through the mathematical center of the painting. For the vertical cut family tradition offers the explanation that the picture "was cut down to eliminate a table and window with distant landscape which was between Captain Schuyler and his wife." Why this was deemed necessary, tradition does not tell, but the most plausible surmise would be that the picture proved too large for the room or wall it was intended for. Whatever the reason may have been, from an artistic point of view it must be regretted, as the vistas of dis­ tant landscape which Smibert introduced into some of his larger pictures are quite charming bits of painting.19 The removal of a vertical strip of canvas between the two figures doubtless called for a partial repainting of the background, and it is evident that this was not done by Smibert himself, as the window is strangely indis­ tinct and opaque, and the curtain behind Mrs. Schuyler is notice-

16 Reproduced in Two Centuries of Costume in America, by Alice M. Earle (New York, 1903), I, facing p. 104. 17 Reproduced, in colors, in The Connoisseur, London, November, 1901. 18 "Mourning lasted for a wearisome time. As it was assumed even for remote relatives one might readily pass all his days in mourning. Often it was worn for life." Earle, op. cit., II, 654. 19 See the Berkeley Family, reproduced in the present Quarterly Bulletin, and the portraits of William Browne and Mrs. William Browne (Johns Hopkins Uni­ versity), Mrs. Mary Ann Faneuil Jones (Massachusetts Historical Society), and Paul Mascarene (privately owned), reproduced in Bayley, op. cit., pp. 357, 359, 397, and 403, resp. QUARTERLYBULLETIN 31 ably inferior in treatment to the curtain behind her husband. The .opinion that this cutting and mending of the canvas "has resulted in the tilting of Captain Schuyler upwards toward the left" is not altogether convincing, as such a tilting of figures and heads slightly backwards, tending to give the pictured person an additional accent of importance, can be noticed in other portraits by Smibert.20 For the horizontal seam I should like to suggest the following explana­ tion. While examining large American paintings of the eighteenth century, I have repeatedly noticed seams that were approximately three feet apart. This would indicate that one of the standard widths of canvas was, and perhaps still is, thirty-six inches. For larger pictures the artists either had to obtain wider canvas, which at times may have presented difficulties, or else had to use two or more lengths of thirty-six inch canvas, sewn together and placed either horizontally or vertically, as the occasion required. Since there is every reason for believing that the Schuyler picture origin­ ally was wider than it is today, it can be assumed that it was also higher, as otherwise it would have been of rather awkward pro­ portions. Two lengths of thirty-six inch canvas, mounted hori­ zontally, gave the artist a painting surface about seventy inches high, which very well may have been the original height of the picture. However, in reducing its width to what it is today, seventy-one inches, it also became necessary to restore its propor­ tions by cutting strips off the top and bottom, bringing the height down to the present fifty-four inches. Smibert's formal style and largely derived technique do not in­ vite a detailed analysis and discussion, which can be dispensed with the more easily as the accompanying reproductions will enable the reader to see for himself the striking similarity between the Schuyler picture and some of the artist's well-known canvases. I will ask him, however, to pay particular attention to the modelling of heads and features, and to observe the treatment of wigs, as well as of fabrics with their characteristic folds, creases, and high­ lights. Inadequate, as half-tones of oil paintings always are, they nevertheless can give us a general idea of an artist's technical 20 Dean Berkeley in the group picture; John Turner (Museum of Fine Arts, Bos­ ton), Governor Joseph Wanton (Rhode Island School of Design), Sir Peter Warren (Athenaeum, Portsmouth, N.H.), reproduced in Bayley, op. cit., pp. 431, 435, and 437, resp. 32 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR WILLIAM TAILER (1676-1732). Painted in 1730 by John Smibert. Courtesy of Mrs. Luke Vincent Lockwood. QUARTERLYBULLETIN 33 peculiarities and mannerisms, and they reveal at least something of the spirit which brings his individual productions into what is usually a very definite relationship. The group picture at Yale is the most ambitious of all of Smibert's known paintings. It measures ninety-three by seventy inches, and is signed on the fore-edge of the small book that lies on the table: Jo. Smibert fecit 1729. At the right stands Dean George Berkeley (1685-1753), who later in life became Bishop of Cloyne, in Ireland. Seated at the table are Mrs. Berkeley, born Anna Forster (1700-1786), holding her small child on her lap; her companion, a Miss Handcock, and Sir James Dalton. The latter acted as Berkeley's secretary and is shown taking a dictation, possibly for "Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher," first pub­ lished in 1732. The gentleman standing behind the ladies has been identified as a Mr. James, while at the left are Smibert's nephew John Moffatt, and the artist himself, holding a scroll in his right hand and looking the "silent, modest man, who abhorred the finesse of some of his profession," as Vertue described him. The two single portraits, each measuring forty by fifty inches, are typical of the definite formula which Smibert followed until the end of his career, the negligible variations being confined largely to accessories and backgrounds. The one of William Tailer (1676- 1732), a particularly pleasing and well preserved example of the artist's work, is a tasteful arrangement in different shades of brown. The rather handsome gentleman was a colonel at the taking of Port Royal in 1710, Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1711-16 and 1730-32, and acting Governor, 1715-16. The painting is signed at the lower left: Jo. Smibert fecit 1730. In the portrait of Oxenbridge Thacher, Sr. (1681- 1772), of Milton, Massachusetts, painted in 1731, the costume is also of brown velvet, and the gentleman wears the ends of his bobwig in front of his shoulders, as does Captain Schuyler. A curtain at the right is of dark green velvet, and the high-backed chair is covered with the same material and edged with a narrow gold braid. Beside those already mentioned, there are many other portraits by Smibert, closely related to the Schuyler picture in spirit and workmanship, but it will suffice to name the following: Richard 34 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Bill (1685-1757), owned by Mrs. W. B. P. Weeks, Boston; Charles Chambers (1660-1743), owned by Russell Sturgis Cod- man, Esq., Boston; Peter Faneuil (1700-1742), Massachusetts Historical Society; Attorney General Jeremiah Gridley (1702- 1767), Harvard Law School; Sir William Pepperell (1696-1759), Essex Institute; Chief Justice Benjamin Pratt (1710-1763), Har­ vard Law School.21 In studying this artist's work it is interesting to find at least a dozen portraits in which the subjects are shown wearing bobwigs. All these pictures were painted during the seven­ teen hundred and thirties, two even as late as 1740 and 1741, which has evidently escaped the attention of Mr. Bolton who estimates the period of this particular type of wig as "from about 1685 to perhaps 1730." 22 Two questions still remain to be answered: where, and approxi­ mately when, was the Schuyler picture painted? So far only three American cities can be definitely associated with Smibert's ac­ tivities: Newport, Narragansett, and Boston. Several interesting sidelights on the artist's career are contained in Updike, whose valuable book is based on the diary of Dr. James MacSparran (1680-1757), for thirty-seven years minister of Saint Paul's Church at Narragansett.23 It appears from this account that soon after their arrival in Newport in 1729, both Dean Berkeley and Smibert visited at the MacSparran home in Narragansett,24 and that the half-length portraits of Dr. MacSparran (now in Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me.), and Mrs. MacSparran, born Hannah Gardner, (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston), were painted by Smibert during that visit. Another remark of Updike's, in this case a highly speculative one, is as follows: "Some indications point at the possibility that Smibert, who was forty-four years of age when he emigrated from England in company with Dean Berkeley, had already lived for some time in America." 2S These "indications" are two references to Smibert made almost a hundred years after his death, a fact which does not enhance their con- 21 All reproduced in Bayley, op. cit., pp. 355, 365, 383, 395, 415, and 419, resp. 22 Charles K. Bolton, op. cit., II, 596a. 23 A History of the Episcopal Church in Narragansett, Rhode Island, by Wilkins Updike, 1847. Revised edition by the Rev. Daniel Goodwin, Boston, 1907. 2i Ibid., I, 223. 25 Ibid., II, 456-57. The statement that Smibert was forty-four years of age at that time, is incorrect. He was in his fortieth year. QUARTERLY BULLETIN 35

OXENBRIDGE THACHER, SR. (1681-1772). Painted in 1731 by John Smibert. Courtesy of Mr. Chester Dale. 36 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY vincingness. One is the previously quoted passage from Ver- planck's Historical Discourse about Smibert's portraits "of the eminent magistrates and divines of New England and New York who lived between 1725 and 1751." Into this remark Updike reads the meaning that Smibert had made an earlier visit to these shores before coming again with the Berkeley party, while it is much more probable that Verplanck was misinformed as to the actual date of Smibert's arrival. The second reference was found in a letter, dated December 4, 1845, from a great-niece of Mrs. MacSparran, Mrs. Frederic Allen, who at one time owned the MacSparran portraits. She writes that Smibert "was the first American painter who went to Rome to study the fine arts," and adds "He returned from England in the same ship with Bishop Berkeley." While Mrs. Allen's use of the phrase "re­ turned from England" is of course interesting, it is too slight, in my opinion, to be of any real significance. The statement is more probably again the result of inaccurate information. Putting aside altogether these ambiguous remarks, it is' certainly not impossible that Smibert made an earlier sojourn in America, but so far no proof for this has been found. It is equally possible, though unproved, that Smibert could have executed commissions in New York, and in such a case the portraits of Captain and Mrs. Schuyler might have been painted there. Albany, I think, can be ruled out, because if the artist had visited the Schuyler residence he hardly would have painted a picture too large for its destined place.26 Taking everything in consideration, I am inclined to think that the Schuylers sat for their portraits in Boston, and, if it is necessary to find an explana­ tion for the trip, it can be pointed out that Colonel Jacob Wendell (1691-1761), Mrs. Schuyler's youngest son by her first husband, had settled in Boston, where he had become a very prosperous merchant. His own three-quarter length portrait, painted by Smibert, is still in the possession of a direct descendant, Dr. John Phillips, of Boston. Without intending to digress from the sub­ ject, it seems to me interesting to mention incidentally that Colonel Wendell, in 1714, married Sarah Oliver, daughter of Dr. James

26 According to Reynolds, op. cit., the house stood on the south-east corner of State and Pearl Streets. QUARTERLYBULLETIN 37

Oliver, of Cambridge, Mass. The youngest of their three sons was Judge Oliver Wendell, who married Mary Jackson. Their daughter Sarah married the Reverend Abiel Holmes, and they were the parents of Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, the poet, who in turn was the father of Oliver Wendell Holmes, former Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, now in his ninety-fourth year and enjoying his otium cum dignitate. As to the time, I believe that the double portrait was painted about 1730 or 1731. My reasons for this opinion are mainly technical, and based on a comparison of the picture with other portraits by Smibert of that period. In 1730, Captain Schuyler was sixty-two years of age and Mrs. Schuyler about sixty-eight, and while their likenesses have received to some extent the benefit of Smibert's rejuvenating brush, the artist has given them no look of false youth. Captain Schuyler, to quote one writer, "was probably the most active of all the children of Philip Pietersen Schuyler," and was "athletic, brave, and full of military aspira­ tions." Apparently he lived heartily to the verge of eighty years. The portrait shows his vigor, but his face impresses me as that of a man in his early sixties, not younger. In the case of Mrs. Schuyler, while her hair is still dark, her age is apparent in her figure and posture, in the sagging muscles of face and throat, and,^perhaps more revealing than all—in the fatigued expression of her eyes. The double portrait, clearly one of Smibert's more important paintings, gains additional interest from the fact that it represents members of a New York family. The artist's clients were almost exclusively New Englanders, as their names indicate, and so far no other likenesses of New Yorkers have come to light which a critical analysis has proved to be his work. MEMBERSHIP The following have been elected members of the Society: Annual members: Mrs. Adolf Ladenburg; Stuart W. Jackson; and Edward M. Ruttenber. Associate members: Parmly S. Clapp; Mrs. A. Valentine Fraser; Walter P.' Gardner; Mrs. James King Hand; and Dr. William Mather Lewis. 38 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY

GALLATIN PORTRAITS Mr. Albert Eugene Gallatin has presented to the Society his Gallatin Iconography (privately printed, 1934, 53 pages, and 55 illustrations). The first half relates to the portraiture of Albert Gallatin (1761-1849), of whom fifteen life portraits are repro­ duced, ten of them for the first time. Mr. Gallatin describes the pictures and their histories, and lists engravings made from them. Following the life portraits are recorded caricatures, daguerreo­ types, with engravings after them, and portraits not executed from life. The second half of the volume is devoted to portraits of other members of the Gallatin family, from 1595 to 1836. Of the thirty-one family portraits which are reproduced, twenty-six have not been published before. There are other illustrations, also, relating to the ancient and distinguished history of the Gallatin family. The earliest of these is a receipt of the year 1258 from the Abbess of Bellacomba to Dominus Fulcherius Gallatin, for money which he had given to her convent.

GIFTS The following is a partial list of gifts received by the Society in the past three months: From Mr. Henry Benson Adriance, a silver snuff box, made by Albert Cole, of New York, c. 1844, engraved as a gift from G. Morris to John Adriance. From Mr. Edmund Bramhall Child, 54 pamphlets, 30 broad­ sides, 23 trade cards, 17 posters, and 42 time-tables, all relating to New York City and vicinity. From Miss Isabella Vache Cox, daguerreotypes of Thomas Soden Henry (d. 1854) and of his wife, Emilie Aglae (Cox) Henry (1821-1866) ; and 5 volumes. From Mrs. A. Valentine Fraser (nee Martha Mott), an eighteenth-century wooden sleigh, from the old Mott Homestead, Middle Neck Road, Port Washington, L. I. It was used by the donor's great-great-great-great-grandfather, Adam Mott, to trans­ port his family from Hempstead to the house which he built at Port Washington about 1715. QUARTERLYBULLETIN 39

From Mrs. James King Hand, in memory of Alanson Cary, a gold watch, made by M. J. Tobias of Liverpool, engraved with a picture of Major Andre's capture. From Mr. John V. Irwin, 27 periodicals and 5 pamphlets. From Mr. William Samuel Johnson, three miniatures by William Dunlap (1766-1839). These are portraits of Abigail (Taylor) Woolsey, wife of Benjamin Woolsey ist, and great- great-great-grandmother of the donor; of Ann (Muirson) Wool­ sey (1737-1807), wife of Benjamin Woolsey, Jr., and great-great- grandmother of the donor; and of William Walton Woolsey (1766-1839), brother-in-law of Mrs. William Dunlap, and great­ grandfather of the donor. From Mrs. Bella C. Landauer, one hundred and four holo­ graph letters from Edwin Davis French (1851-1906) to Charles Dexter Allen (1865-1926). They are friendly and interesting letters, written principally from Saranac Lake in the period 1896- 1904, and contain many references to his own book-plates, and to other engravers. From Mr. Douglas C. McMurtrie, 13 of his own pamphlets relating to early printing. From Mrs. Charles Remsen (Lilian Livingston Jones), a gold medal, which was bequeathed to Henry Remsen, in 1788, by Maria (Gouverneur) Farmer, granddaughter of Jacob Leisler. From Mr. William A. Robbins, 150 programs, 6 valentines, 15 pamphlets, and a lithograph, with a key, of Daniel Webster ad­ dressing the U. S. Senate, March 7, 1850. From Mr. Edward M. Ruttenber, Zeisberger's Indian Diction­ ary, with manuscript additions and notes by the donor's grand­ father, Edward M. Ruttenber, the historian. From Miss Mary Otis Stevens, a blue silk dress coat worn by Albert Gallatin (1761-1849) when he was United States Minister abroad; and a lilac moire court train worn by Mrs. Albert Gallatin (Hannah Nicholson). These were given to the donor by her aunt, Miss Josephine L. Stevens, who was a granddaughter of Mr. and Mrs. Albert Gallatin. From Mr. George H. Sullivan, a collection of fireplace fittings, coal grates and fenders, used in his home at 16 West nth Street from about 1885 to 191 o. 40 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY

From Miss Marie Aglae Vache, a sofa used by the Vache and Cox families; 3 miniatures; 2 books, and a lithograph of the Marine Hospital on Staten Island. From Mr. William M. Wallace, a collection of 200 firemen's badges, buttons, and pins; 7 volumes, 7 photographs, 13 dance programs, belts, and numbered plates, all relating to the old fire companies of New York City and vicinity. From Miss Mary Louise Waters, a daguerreotype of Samuel Blackwell Waters (1835-1901), made in 1857 when he was a member of the Seventh Regiment; and his insignia pin of that Regiment. EXHIBITIONS In the north and south galleries on the main floor, there has been arranged a special summer exhibition, to be continued through September, picturing the summer resorts of New Yorkers in the nineteenth century. Included are original drawings, engravings, lithographs and photographs of such popular places of recreation near the city as the Elysian Fields in Hoboken, Bowery Bay Beach, Long Branch, Coney Island, and Rockaway; and farther afield, the Catskills, Saratoga Springs, and Newport. In addition to the pictures, there are guide books, railroad and steamship time-tables, and advertisements for summer hotels and excursions. Mr. R. T. Haines Halsey's collection of dark blue Stafford­ shire pottery, decorated with views of New York City and State, 1821-1835, will be on exhibition in the Society's Annex, 4 West 77th Street, beginning October sixth. The Society has a large and interesting collection of apparatus, equipment, badges, and pictures of the old Volunteer Fire com­ panies of New York City, and of that part of Westchester County which is now included in the Borough of the Bronx. This collection is now on view in the basement exhibition hall of the main building. The Society's Annexes on 76th Street and on 77th Street will be closed during the months of July, August and September. The main building will be closed as usual during August, and will re­ open September fourth.